LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



PRESENTED/ BY 

UNITED STATES OE AMEEIOA. 



ft 



I [EXTRA SESSION.] 



Conimonaicaltl) of 3tla00ad)U0ttts, 



EVIDENCE. 

Thursday, May 31, 1860. 

The Legislative Committee on the Pleuro-Pneumonia held 
their first meeting in the hall of the House on Thursday, May 
31, at 12, M. 

The following gentlemen of the House and Senate constitute 
the Committee : — 

Messrs. Nash, of Hampshire, Chairman : 
Cole, of Berkshire, 
Gorham, of Worcester, 
Osgood, of Essex, 
Fisher, of Norfolk, 
Whiting, of Plymouth, and 
Cook, of Worcester, 

Of the Senate. 

Messrs. Eldridge, of Canton, 
Wentworth, of Lowell, 
Thompson, of Nantucket, 
Fuller, of Whately, 
Griffin, of Maiden, 
Gifford, of Provincetown, 
Parsons, of Northampton, 
• Choate, of Salem, 

Jenks, of North Brookfield, 
Gardner, of Swanzey, 
Shurtleff, of North Chelsea, 
Gay, of Springfield, 
Woodman, of Charlestown, and 
Scovill, of Sheffield, 

Of the House. 

■ \% 



2 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Mr. Parsons, of Northampton, was chosen Secretary. 

On motion of Mr. Gifford, of Provincetown, it was voted to 
employ a phonographic reporter ; and Mr. J. M. W. Yerrinton 
was nominated and unanimously elected. 

It was voted to ask the attendance of the Commissioners at 
the next meeting, and to give a hearing to all persons desiring 
to be heard. 

The Committee then adjourned till 2|- o'clock. 



Afternoon Session. 

Thursday, May 31. 

The Chairman called the Committee to order at the hour to 
which it had adjourned, and requested a motion as to the order 
of farther proceedings. 

Mr. Wentworth. — I move that the Chairman of the Com- 
mission be requested to state to the Committee what, in his 
judgment, is necessary to be done in the present state of the 
cattle disease, by the State. 

The motion was carried, and Mr. Paoli Lathrop was accord- 
ing invited to make the statement asked for. 

Mr. Lathrop. — Mr. Walker will give you, gentlemen, a his- 
tory of the introduction of this disease and its progress thus 
far. 

Mr. Wentworth. — Mr. Chairman, we don't want to take up 
the introduction of the disease, or the progress of it, for we 
have that in writing. What we want to know is the desire of 
the Commissioners in the present state of the case, what they 
want of the legislature. 



Mr. Walker. — It is thought by the Board that it may be 
proper, as a sort of connecting history of the whole case, that 
the facts should be stated in regard to the introduction of the 
disease, because these facts will show something what ought to 
be done. They will show the nature of the disease, and 
whether it is contagious or not; upon those facts legislation 
must be based. 



HEARING BEFOEE COMMITTEE. 3 

The disease was introduced into North Brookfield from Bel- 
mont. Mr. Curtis Stoddard, a young man of North Brook- 
field, went down the very last of June, last year, and purchased 
three calves of Mr. Chenery, of Belmont. He brought those 
calves up in the cars to Brookfield. On their way from the 
depot up to his house, about five miles, one of the calves was 
observed to falter, and when he got to his house, it seemed to 
be sick ; and in two or three days exhibited very great illness, 
so much so that his father came along, and thinking he could 
take care of it better, took the calf home. He took it to his 
own barn, where there were about forty head of cattle, but it 
grew no better, and his son went up and brought it back to his 
own house. In about ten days after that, it died. His father, 
who had had the calf four days, in about a fortnight afterwards 
observed that one of his oxen was sick, and it grew sick very 
fast and died. Two weeks after, a second was taken sick and 
died. Then a third was taken and died, the interval growing 
a little wider from the attack of one animal to that of another, 
■until he had lost eight oxen and cows. Young Stoddard lost 
no animal by the infection, that is, no one died on his hands, 
prior to the appointment of this Commission. About the first 
of November, — for reasons independent of this disease, which 
I don't suppose he then knew the nature of, — he sold off his 
stock. He sold off eleven heifers or young animals, and 
retained nine of the most valuable himself, which shows that 
he did not then know any thing was the matter with them. 
These nine were four oxen and five young cattle. The four 
he took to his father's, three of the others he took to his uncle's, 
and the two remaining he took to his father-in-law, — distribut- 
ing them all among his friends, which furnishes another proof 
that he did not suppose he was doing any mischief. He dis- 
posed of his herd in that way. From this auction, these eleven 
animals went in different directions, and wherever they went, 
they scattered the infection. Without a single failure, the 
disease has followed those cattle, — in one case, more than two 
hundred cattle having been infected by one which was sold at 
Curtis Stoddard's auction, when he was entirely , ignorant of 
the disease. 

When the Commission was appointed, they went and exam- 
ined his cattle, and were satisfied that they were diseased, — at 



4 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

least, some of them. They examined his fathers herd, and 
found that they were very much diseased ; and when we came 
to kill Curtis Stoddard's cattle, seven of the nine head were 
diseased. Two were not condemned, because the law says 
cattle not appearing to be diseased shall be appraised. Never- 
theless, it proved that these animals were diseased ; so that his 
whole herd were affected. In regard to Leonard Stoddard's 
cattle, — he lost fourteen of his animals before the Commis- 
sioners went to his place. They took eighteen more, which 
were all diseased, — most of them very bad cases indeed — 
extreme cases. That left eight head which were not con- 
demned because not appearing to be diseased. Here I remark, 
that when the disease is under the* shoulder blade, it cannot be 
detected by percussion. The physicians did not say the animal 
is not diseased, but — " we do not perceive sufficient evidence 
to condemn." Such animals were to be paid for, on the ground 
of not appearing to be diseased. Nevertheless, it is proper to 
state that the remaining eight which were not condemned were 
suspected to be diseased, and we told Mr. Stoddard that we 
had the impression that they were diseased, nowithstanding 
appearances. He says : " There is a three-year old heifer that 
has never faltered at all — she has never manifested the slightest 
disease ; if you will kill her, and she is diseased, I shall make 
up my mind that I have not a well animal in my stalls." We 
killed that animal, and she was badly diseased. Thus the two 
first herds were all infected by the disease ; and in the last of 
Curtis Stoddard's oxen which we killed, we found a cyst in the 
lungs of each. One of these lungs is now in this building, 
never having been cut open, and medical men can see the cyst 
which it contains. 

I have said in what manner Mr. Curtis Stoddard's cattle 
spread the infection. In regard to Mr. Leonard Stoddard, — in 
the first place, he kept six or eight oxen which he employed in 
teaming. He was drawing some lumber, and stopped over 
night with his oxen at Mr. Needham's. Needham lost his 
whole herd. He lost eight or ten of them, and the rest were 
in a terrible condition. Seven or eight more were condemned, 
and his whole herd was destroyed, in consequence of Mr. 
Stoddard's stopping with him over night. Mr. Stoddard sold 
an animal to Mr. Woodis, of New Braintree. He had twenty- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 5 

three fine cows. It ruined his herd utterly. Seven or eight 
animals died before the Commissioners got there. Mr. L. 
Stoddard sold a yoke of cattle to Mr. Olmstead, one of his 
neighbors, who had a very good herd of cattle. They stayed 
only live days in his hands, when they passed over to Mr. 
Doane. In those five days, they had so infected his herd that it 
was one of the most severe instances of disease that we have 
had. One-third were condemned, and another third were 
passed over as sound, whether they were so or not. They did 
not appear to be diseased. The cattle that were passed from 
Mr. Stoddard through Mr. Olmstead to Mr. Doane, Mr. Doane 
lent to go to a moving of a building from Oakham to North 
Brookfield. They were put in with twenty-two yoke of cattle, 
and employed a day and a half. It has proved since that the 
whole of these cattle took the contagion. They belonged to 
eleven different herds. Of course they carried it into eleven 
different herds— and each of these herds formed a new focus 
from which the disease spread. Now, in these two ways, the 
disease has spread in different directions. But when the 
Commissioners first commenced, they had no idea that the 
disease extended further than those herds where there were 
animals sick. And hence their ideas, and the ideas of 
those who petitioned for the law, did not extend at all to 
so large a number of herds as have since proved to be 
diseased ; because they only judged of those who manifested 
disease. As soon as we begun in that circle, we found a second 
circle of infection, and another outside of that ; and by that 
time it had branched off in various directions to various towns. 
It assumed such proportions that it was very evident that the 
Commissioners had not the funds to perform the operations 
required by the law. The law confines the Commissioners to 
one operation, — killing and burying. No discretionary power 
is given at all. Well, now, the Commissioners became entirely 
dissatisfied with that condition of things, because other measures, 
besides merely killing and burying, are quite as necessary and 
important. And when they arrived at that point, and dis- 
covered to what extent the infection had spread, they stopped 
killing the herds, and I believe there has not been a herd killed 
for twenty days. The policy was then changed to circumscrib- 
ing the disease, by isolating the herds just as fast as possible, 



6 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

and as surely as possible. A man's herd has been exposed. 
There is no other way but to go there and examine it, and take 
the diseased animals away ; then he knows the animals are 
diseased, and his neighbors know it. That has been the busi- 
ness of the Commissioners for the last twenty days ; and the 
fact that the Commissioners had no discretionary power what- 
ever, and that they were entirely circumscribed in their means, 
and that it was hard for the farmers to lose their stock and not 
to be paid for it, induced them to petition the Governor, in con- 
nection with the Board of Agriculture, for the calling of a 
session of the legislature, to take measures for the extinction 
of the disease. The other gentlemen of the Commission will 
state what our wishes are in the matter, and I will not take up 
the time any further. 

A Member. — I would like to inquire, Mr. Walker, where the 
disease came from to this Mr. Chenery in Belmont ? 

Mr. Walker. — I understand, — and I believe there is no doubt 
about the fact, — that he imported it from Holland, in which 
country it has existed two hundred years. 

Q. — Have you obtained any facts relative to his herd ? 

A. — Perhaps I should have alluded to that. Soon after the 
appointment of the Commissioners, they went to Mr. Chenery's 
herd, and found that he had them all kept close in his barn, and 
they were apparently safe, as far as giving infection to other herds 
was concerned. He thought that his cattle had got well, pretty 
much, except one animal which was sick. We killed the one 
that was sick, and it proved to be very badly diseased. We killed 
one which had been cured twice, and that was in about as bad 
a state. We killed another and found that diseased, but we 
went no further at that time, mainly for the reason that his 
herd was safe, while all around us there was imminent danger. 

The great drawback was the fact that before the Commission 
was appointed, cattle began to go out to grass. The trouble 
and expense and loss would have been much less if we could 
have begun operations before the cattle left the barns. 

Mr. Griffin. — I would like to ask Mr. Walker what remedy 
he proposes. 

Mr. Walker. — I think my associates have some measures to 
propose, and I will say nothing at present on that point. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 7 

A Member. — I would like to ask if any animal has recovered ? 

Mr. Walker. — Animals have recovered in this way. We 
went to Mr. Woodis, and he says : " There is an animal that has 
recovered. It has been sick twice — very sick — but it is now all 
over it." It was an ox, apparently well, ruminating and gain- 
ing flesh. Now I think all that was true ; it appeared so. Our 
surgeons examined it, and said the animal was diseased. It 
was killed, and both lungs were found in a hopeless case — very 
badly diseased indeed. Yet the animal looked well, and was 
gaining flesh. We found a great many cases of that kind, 
where animals appeared to be in a way of recovery, and yet, 
when they were killed, it appeared that they were hopelessly 
diseased. 

Q. — Have you formed any opinion in regard to the time 
necessary for the development of disease after exposure ? 

A. — In regard to that, we have not. And it is the want of 
knowledge of the laws of the disease that is the great obstacle 
to our operations, and it is the most alarming fact in regard to 
the disease, that it don't seem to be understood at all in this 
country, or even in Europe, where they have had it for two 
hundred years. 

Q. — Is there no literature of the disease at all ? 

A. — I presume that there may be some ; but I understand 
that there is no single book on the subject. There are articles 
in the Transactions of the London Philosophical Society, and of 
the Royal Society of Great Britain ; but I believe there is no 
distinct work on the subject. 

Q. — Has killing been the only remedy known in Europe ? 

A. — That is the general remedy. I have got in a memoran- 
dum book a great many statements in relation to that, where it 
has been adopted. If it is worth while to give them at this 
point, 1 will read some of them. 

In the year 1714, when it was introduced into England, one 
of the rules adopted was, that " all such cows as are now 
in the possession of certain persons mentioned, be bought, 
killed and burned ; or, at least, that the sick be killed and 
burned — that the sound be kept isolated — and that such as 
sickened or died of this distemper be burned." In point of 
fact, they were burned or destroyed, — all of them that were 



8 PLEURQ-PNEUMONIA. 

affected, — and as I understand, the disease was exterminated 
for the time being. 

The .orders and regulations that had so fully succeeded in 
England were enacted and adopted in Belgium, and in Flanders 
and Piccardy, in France, and succeeded. And within twenty 
years, they have been adopted in Switzerland, and succeeded. 
In 1774, when the contagion was carried through Bordeaux to 
the south of France from Holland, — and in every case we trace 
this disease to Holland, no country having received it from any 
other source, — after attempts to cure had failed, the disease was 
stopped by the killing system, as in Great Britain. 

Mr. Wentworth. — From what authority do you read ? 

Mr. Walker. — Well, Sir, I read extracts from the Trans- 
actions of the London Philosophical Society, or else from the 
Agricultural Transactions of the Royal Society. 

Mr. Wentworth. — Where do you find it — in a newspaper ? 

Mr. Walker. — It comes from a newspaper, but I have seen 
the gentleman who prepared the article, and have read the 
authorities myself, and presume it is none the worse for 
coming through a newspaper. I have taken such good authori- 
ties as I could, the literature not being very abundant. 

Q. — Who prepared those articles ? 

A. — Mr. Leander Wetherell, who is connected with the 
Cultivator of this city — I suppose I may state, although I am 
not authorized to do so. 

The disease became naturalized in Denmark, and the practice 
of inoculation was adopted there and in Holland, but it seems 
it has not succeeded. Of three hundred cattle inoculated in 
one instance, not a sixth part were saved. 

I have here an extract from a letter of Mr. Josiah Stickney, 
of this city, who is now in England, and he advocates the 
adoption of the English course. This comes pretty fresh from 
a man of education and talent, who has gone abroad for the 
purpose' of collecting information on this very matter. He 
thinks the cow is less likely to be destroyed, from her greater 
tenacity of life. So far as we know in this country, bulls seem 
to be the most proof against the disease. They are much less 
liable to show severe cases of the disease, than other animals of 
the same race. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 9 

A gentleman in Australia imported an animal which proved 
to be diseased, when his neighbors agreed to share the loss from 
the slaughter of his entire stock ; and at last accounts, this 
course had proved successful. 

The mortality in England is determined at about sixty per 
cent, of all that are exposed to the disease. But the facts that 
are adduced here in evidence show that even a much larger 
proportion die. Mr. Ratcliffe, out of two hundred lost one 
hundred and twenty ; another gentleman lost sixty-two out of 
seventy-two; another, thirty-eight out of eighty-seven. 

A Member.— I would like to ask, how long after the export- 
ing of these cattle from Holland, the disease broke out in Mr. 
Chenery's herd ? 

Mr. Walker. — They arrived here in the early part of the 
spring of 1859, and the disease appeared in about two months ; 
in fact, some of the animals were sick when they got here. 
Two of them were carried in trucks to his barn ; but they had 
no idea then what the disease was. These calves of Mr. Stod- 
dard's left there on the 27th or 28th of June. 

Q. — What became of the cows first sick ? 

A. — I have not kept so close a run of them, but I believe 
one or two of them died, and the other two are still alive. 

Q. — What is your estimate of the value of inoculation. 

A. — That is a subject that should be gone into separately. 
Gentlemen are here who will give you all the facts better than 
I can. I believe that in Europe, the general opinion is that it 
is not a success ; that is, the remedy is almost as bad as the 
disease. They cut off the animal's tail, take a piece of dis- 
eased lung, and insert it under the skin near the shoulder ; it 
causes a terrible inflammation, a part of the tail rots off, and 
frequently the whole ; the body is ulcerated and covered with 
offensive sores ; and it is a terrible remedy even in those cases 
where it succeeds, and in all cases it is very uncertain and 
very unpleasant. It is a very different matter from the inocu- 
lation of the kine pock. 

Dr. George B. Loring, one of the Commissioners, being 
invited to speak, said :— ~ 



10 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Mr. Chairman, I hardly know what course the Committee 
will require the Commissioners to take in making their state- 
ment. The request made by a member of the Committee just 
now, was that the Commissioners should say what their desire 
was in petitioning for an extraordinary session of the legisla- 
ture. I can state that in a yqtj few words, Sir, or, with the 
leave of the Committee, I will go on and present the whole 
matter of this disease, as it appears to the Commissioners, who 
have investigated it here, not only from their own observation ? 
but from the best information that they can acquire from 
Europe, or those portions of Europe in which the disease orig- 
inated. It will take a very few words to do the former of these 
things ; it will take a great many words, and many tedious- 
ones, I fear, to do the latter. I am perfectly willing to sub- 
mit the whole thing to the Committee. If they desire me to 
simply state what our wishes and desires are, I will do so ; 
and if they wish to know what our views are and the best 
information we have on the subject, I will give that. It shall 
be for the Committee to decide. 

The Chairman. — The Committee would like to have you 
state simply, at present, the desires of the Commission. 

Dr. Loring. — I would say that the Commissioners found the 
Act under which they were empowered to operate, for the 
extirpation of the disease called pleuro-pneumonia, wholly 
insufficient to enable them to accomplish their object. In the 
first jDlace, the appropriation was not sufficient. The disease 
was found extended over so large a territory that it was beyond 
the physical power of any three men to cope with it. They 
wished authority to employ agents to assist them legally in the 
transaction of their business. They further desired power to 
prevent the spread of the disease by isolation, which was not 
furnished them. And I mean by isolation, cutting off herds 
from adjoining herds by various means, — by shutting them up 
in stalls, or by confining them in pastures, cut off from adjoin- 
ing pastures. They wished power to disinfect all buildings 
which had been exposed to the disease — barns and hay. These 
were the chief points which led the Commissioners to appeal to 
the State Board of Agriculture, and next, in connection with 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 11 

that Board and numerous citizens, to petition the governor for 
an extra session of the legislature. 

The Commissioners have in their hands, Sir, some proposi- 
tions made by highly respectable and influential gentlemen in 
the Commonwealth, which they simply submit to the Com- 
mittee, touching an Act which would empower the Commis- 
sioners, so far as their experience teaches them, to go on in 
their work. One of these papers has been drawn up by ex- 
governor Lincoln, another has been prepared in the office of the 
attorney-general, and a third has been furnished by the Rev. 
Mr. Sewall, a member of the State Board of Agriculture. 
These papers contain the whole proposition of the Commission- 
ers, with regard to the Act which they desire to have passed by 
the legislature. 

Mr. F. W. Bird, of Walpole, addressed the Chair, but was 
Interrupted by a member of the Committee. 

A Member. — Not knowing whether the symptoms of the dis- 
ease are described in the Report of the Commissioners, I, for 
one, should be happy to be informed in that matter, and I move 
that Dr. Loring be requested to give a statement in regard to 
that point. 

[No action was taken on" this motion.] 

Mr. Bird. — Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say except to 
state to the Committee, that, representing certain remonstrants, 
I came in this morning, and, learning that the Remonstrance 
which I had presented had not been referred to the Committee, 
— that is, not having passed the Senate, — I supposed that, in 
accordance with usage, there would be no public hearing until 
the papers were regularly before the Committee. I inquired of 
my friend, the Chairman of the Committee on the part of the 
House, and he said he supposed that public notice would be 
given to remonstrants and others who wished to be heard. 
Accordingly, I started to go home, but accidentally met a friend 
who informed me that the Committee was in session this after- 
noon. I appear in behalf of the remonstrants with whom I 
am particularly connected, and it may not be improper to say, 
having been in consultation with some of its eminent members, 
in behalf of the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 



12 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

who were active in bringing the matter to the attention of the 
Society yesterday, with whom I agreed to appear before the 
Committee to-morrow, and whom I informed that there would 
undoubtedly be no hearing until to-morrow. I do not desire 
to go on now. I am sure those gentlemen of the Medical 
Society are very desirous of appearing. Dr. Bowditch desired 
to appear, — only it seemed necessary that their Memorial should 
come before the Committee regularly, through the legislature. 
That being the case, they supposed the hearing would not take 
place till to-morrow. It seems to me a matter of a great deal 
of importance. Unprepared as I am, at present, to represent 
the remonstrants, and not having counsel as I had intended to 
have, and feeling that the statements made here, if they are 
made as evidence, should be scrutinized, — not that I mean to 
say that the Committee are not capable of scrutinizing them, — 
we should like to have the opportunity of scrutinizing the 
statements of the Commissioners, and I only wish to say that I 
reserve the rights of the remonstrants in this respect, till they 
appear before you at the proper time. 

The Chairman. — It would be out of the jurisdiction of the 
Committee to act upon the Remonstrance of Mr. Bird, and 
others, until it comes properly before them. 

Mr. Wentworth. — When I made the motion to hear the 
Commissioners upon the subject of their desire in calling the 
legislature together, I supposed that we should confine our- 
selves pretty much to what they considered necessary for us to 
do, this afternoon. I had understood that the Massachusetts 
Medical Society had raised a committee for the purpose of 
memorializing the two Houses upon this subject, and it occurred 
to me that that committee should be present when any medical 
testimony was gone into on behalf of the Commissioners. And 
I suppose it would be very desirable for the Committee, as well 
as for gentlemen adverse to the course pursued by the Commis- 
sioners to be present, so as to learn what they could, from their 
description of the disease and their mode of treating it. I 
think it would be better myself to defer going into the medical 
part of this examination to-day, and to give an opportunity for 
the Memorial of Mr. Bird to be referred to us in concurrence, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 13 

and also the Memorial of the Medical Society, before we go 
into that part of the case ; and in my judgment we had better 
confine ourselves to the views and wants of the Commissioners, 
with such other testimony as they may think proper to give in 
relation of the history of their transactions, and defer the 
testimony in relation to the disease and its progress until 
to-morrow. We shall want to know from the Commission how 
they propose to treat the disease in future, and the amount of 
money they want of the legislature, in their judgment, in 
order to enable them to carry out the views they entertain. I 
think it would be best to confine the Commissioners to these 
points at present, and to defer the other part of it until the 
Memorials are presented to us, and the parties representing 
them are ready to take part in the examination. 

By request, Dr. Loring here read to the Committee the 
three propositions, alluded to in his remarks, from ex-governor 
Lincoln, Rev. Mr. Sewall, and Mr. Choate of the Attorney- 
General's office, as follows : — 

Worcester, May 28, 1860. 
Charles L. Flint, Esq., Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. 

My Dear Sir, — I have the deepest solicitude in regard to the action 
of the legislature, in the matter upon which it is specially convened. 
The most vigorous and effective measures should be immediately 
prosecuted to arrest the alarming progress of the disease among cattle, 
which now threatens the destruction of our herds, and the utter prostra- 
tion of the agricultural interest of the country. Nor do I distrust the 
success of proper efforts to this end. It is by no means an impossible, 
or even a very difficult thing, to protect our healthy stocks by isolation 
on our farms. Let authority be given, if it does not now exist, to 
require owners of cattle, in infected places, to inclose lots in the middle 
of their farms, or in places secure from communication, for the keeping 
of their cattle ; or where this cannot be done, to keep them, by soiling 
in their stables. At this season of the year, no great hardship would 
attend such requirements, and by a rigorous prohibition of the removal 
of animals from place to place, by driving them on the highways, or by 
transportation by the cars, the further dissemination of the disease may 
be prevented. It should be arrested by whatever human effort it may be 
accomplished. 

The hazard of entire loss is a sore temptation, with unscrupulous men, 
to dispose of their animals, which if not known to be diseased, have yet 



14 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

been exposed to contagion. To relieve the public mind from anxiety on 
this subject, and at the same time to afford additional security against 
infection, some measure of legislation seems called for, and I have ven- 
tured, in a very hasty manner, to propose an enactment to that end. 
The accompanying sheets are not offered as a precise form to be adopted, 
but are respectfully submitted to you, as a suggestion, substantially, of 
what might be proposed for the action of the legislature. 

I cannot but suggest, also, the expediency, if not absolute necessity, of 
enlarging the number and powers of the Commissioners. The field of 
duty and the labor required to its prompt and effectual discharge, are 
altogether beyond the physical ability of any three persons to its accom- 
plishment. I think there should be Commissions for large geographical 
divisions of the Commonwealth. 

I pray you, pardon, for my interest in the cause, the liberty I take in 
thus addressing you, and be assured of the great regard with which 
I am, very truly, 

Your obliged and obedient servant, 

Levi Lincoln. 

Section — . Be it further enacted, That no animal of the ox genus 
slaughtered for food within this Commonwealth, shall in any part or 
parts of such animal, be offered for sale, until such animal, after the 
slaughter thereof, with the viscera of such animal, shall be examined by 
some competent person to be appointed for such purpose, in the manner 
hereinafter provided ; and upon the examination and certificate of such 
person, it shall -be certified to the person slaughtering the same, or the 
owner thereof, that the flesh of such animal is healthy and fit for 
human food and sustenance. And if any person shall sell, or offer for 
sale, within this Commonwealth, the flesh, tallow, hide, horns, or any 
other part or parts of any animal of the ox genus slaughtered for 
food, without first causing such animal, and the viscera thereof, to be 
examined, and obtaining a certificate of the healthy condition of such 
animal at the time of its slaughter, from the person appointed to such 
service, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be liable to a fine, to 
the use of the Commonwealth, of not less than dollars, nor 

more than dollars, or to imprisonment in the common jail 

of the county, for a term not less than months, nor more than 

, in the discretion of the court before which the con- 
viction shall be. 

Section — . Be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the 
mayor and aldermen of every city, and the selectmen of every town in 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 15 

this Commonwealth, in their respective cities and towns, within two days 
after receiving notice of the passage of this act, to appoint for their cities 
and towns respectively, one or more, not exceeding three for any city or 
town, skilful and competent persons to examine all such animals as are 
described in the last foregoing section in the manner therein provided 
after the same are slaughtered ; and it shall be the duty of each or 
either of the persons so appointed, upon application to him therefor, to 
examine the carcass and viscera of such animals, and if the same are 
found healthy, and the flesh fit and proper for human food and sustenance, 
to make and deliver to the persons slaughtering the same, or the owner 
thereof, a certificate of such examination, and his judgment thereon. 
And for such examination, the person so making the same shall be entitled 
to receive of the person making application therefor, or of the owner 
of such animal, for every animal of one year old, or over that age, the 
sum of one dollar, and for every animal under one year of age, fifty 
cents ; and if more than one animal shall be examined at the same time 
and place, one-half the above compensation for each animal so exam- 
ined after the first. And it shall be the duty of the secretary of the 
Commonwealth, as soon as may be after the passage of this act, to 
transmit a printed copy thereof to the clerk of each city and town in 
the Commonwealth. 

Section — . Any person who shall sell, or offer for sale, milk from any 
diseased or unhealthy animal, knowing that the animal from which such 
milk was taken was diseased or unhealthy, shall forfeit for each instance 
of such offence, the sum of dollars, to be recovered on com- 

plaint before the police court of any city or town, or any trial justice 
having jurisdiction of offences within the county ; one-half of the penalty 
to the use of the complainant, and the other half to the use of the city or 
town in which such sale, or offer of sale, shall be made. 

Section — . This act shall take effect from and after its passage. 

Proposition of Rev. Charles G. Sewall. 
An Act respecting the Disease among Cattle, called Pleuro-Pneumonia. 
Be it enacted, Sj-c. 

Section 1. The commissioners that have been or may hereafter be 
appointed by the governor shall have full power to establish any and all 
suitable regulations in this Commonwealth for the suppression or extinc- 
tion of the disease among cattle called pleuro-pneumonia ; to cause all 
cattle which may have been exposed to, or exhibit symptoms of, the 
aforesaid disease, to be forthwith killed and buried, and the premises 
where such cattle have been kept to be thoroughly cleansed and purified; 



16 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

and to make such order in relation to the further use and occupation of 
such premises as, in their opinion, may be necessary. 

Section 2. The commissioners shall cause all cattle which, in their 
opinion, should be killed, to be appraised by two competent judges, under 
oath, at a fair market value, and the amount of such appraisement shall 
be allowed and paid out of the treasury of this Commonwealth to the 
owner or owners thereof. 

Section 3. Any person in this Commonwealth having any cattle in 
his possession, care, or keeping, which shall at any time have been ex- 
posed to, or shall exhibit symptoms of, the aforesaid disease, shall be and 
is hereby required to give notice thereof, Within twenty-four hours from 
and after his knowledge of the same, to the selectmen of any town or to 
the mayor and aldermen of any city of which such person may be an 
inhabitant or in which he may have a residence, under penalty for with- 
holding such notice of a sum not exceeding dollars, or of 
imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding months. 

Section 4. It shall be the duty and it is hereby required of the 
selectmen of any town and of the mayor and aldermen of any city, having 
notice of the existance of any such exposure or disease among cattle, 
from the owner or owners or keeper thereof, or from any other source, 
to inform the commissioners of the same, within twenty-four hours there- 
after, under a penalty for the neglect or omission of such duty, of a sum 
not exceeding dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail for a 

term not exceeding months. 

Section 5. The commissioners shall and are hereby authorized to 
prohibit the transportation of cattle by railroad or otherwise, into, from, 
or through any portion of the Commonwealth, where the aforesaid dis- 
ease may be known to exist or have existed or any portion contiguous 
thereto, except under such restrictions and regulations as, in their opin- 
ion, may be necessary — which restrictions and regulations shall be forth- 
with made known by posting them in suitable conspicuous places in 
every town and city of the Commonwealth. 

Section 6. The commissioners shall have power and are hereby 
authorized to take and hold possession of such land or lands in any town 
or city of this Commonwealth, from which, in their opinion, it may be 
necessary to exclude all cattle of any description, or within which it may 
be necessary to inclose the same, for such time as the public safety shall 
demand. And they shall cause an appraisement to be made of the rent 
of such lands by the assessors of any town or city wherein such lands 
are situated, and the amount of such appraisement shall be forthwith 
allowed and paid out the treasury of the Commonwealth to the owner or 
owners thereof. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 17 

Segtion 7. Any person in this Commonwealth who shall violate or 
knowingly disregard any order or direction of the commissioners afore- 
said, or who shall remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any cattle which 
he knows, or has good cause to suspect, have been exposed to the afore- 
said disease, shall forfeit and pay unto the treasurer of the Common- 
wealth a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars. 

Section 8. The commissioners shall duly certify all allowances to 
be made under the second and sixth sections of this act, and all other 
expenses incurred by them, or under their direction, in the discharge of 
their trust, to the governor and council, and the governor is hereby 
authorized to draw his warrant therefor upon the treasury. 

Section 9. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are here- 
by repealed. 

Section 10. This act shall take effect from and after its passage 
[and continue in force for the term of one year thereafter and no 
longer.] 

Proposition of William G. Choate, Bsq> 

Section 1. The selectmen of every town and the mayor and alder- 
men of every city may, and if directed so to do by the commissioners 
appointed under the one hundred and ninety-second chapter of the 
acts of the present year, or a majority of them in writing, shall establish 
at some convenient place in such town or city a hospital or quarantine, 
to which shall be taken all cattle, sick or diseased within said town or 
city with the pleuro-pneumonia, or suspected to be so diseased, and all 
cattle ordered to be taken thereto by the said commissioners or either of 
them ; and the same shall be maintained until the said commissioners 
shall authorize the discontinuance thereof, at the expense of such town 
or city. 

Section 2. The selectmen of any town and the mayor and alder- 
men of any city may, and if directed so to do by said commissioners or 
the majority of them in writing shall, prohibit the passage through said 
town, or from or to said town or city to or from any other place, or 
between different parts of such town or city, of any neat cattle, and 
shall post up a notice of such prohibition in not less than four public 
places in said town or city, and may arrest and detain at the cost of the 
owners, all cattle found passing in violation thereof, and may take all 
other necessary measures for the enforcement of such prohibition. 

Section 3. The said commissioners, or a majority of them, may 
make such orders in relation to the mode of securing cattle during their 
passage from place to place within the whole or any part of the Com- 
monwealth, and in relation to the treatment of diseased cattle, as they 
3 



18 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

shall deem necessary or expedient to prevent the communication of said 
disease and to effect its cure or extirpation ; and the selectmen shall 
take all necessary measures to carry into effect the orders of the com- 
missioners, and such orders shall be published in such newspaper or 
newspapers in the several counties in which they are to take effect, as 
said commissioners shall order. 

Section 4. Every town maintaining a hospital as aforesaid may 
recover the actual expense of the keeping and treatment of any cattle 
therein of the owner thereof in an action of contract. 

Section 5. Whoever knows, or has reason to suspect the existence 
of said disease among the cattle in his possession, or under his care, 
shall forthwith give notice thereof to the selectmen or mayor and alder- 
men of the town or city. 

Section 6. Whoever knowingly violates the provisions of this act 
or the act to which this is in addition, or fails to comply forthwith with 
the lawful orders of said commissioners, or drives or carries, or attempts 
to drive or carry any neat cattle to or from any place prohibited as 
aforesaid, except by the license in writing of said commissioners or one 
of them, shall be punished by fine not more than five hundred dollars, 
and imprisonment not more than one year for each offence. 

Section 7. Said commissioners, or the majority of them, may pro- 
hibit or regulate as aforesaid the transportation of neat cattle, to or from 
place to place within the Commonwealth, on any railroad, canal, 
steam-boat, vessel, or other vehicle of transport ; and any corporation 
violating their orders shall forfeit a sum not exceeding five hundred 
dollars for each creature so unlawfully transported, and the officers, 
agents, servants or persons acting in behalf of such corporation shall 
also be subject to the penalties of the preceding section. 

Section 8. Any city or town, whose officers shall neglect or refuse 
to establish or maintain such hospital or quarantine, after they shall be 
ordered so to do, as aforesaid, shall forfeit a sum not less than one 
hundred nor more than five hundred dollars for each day's neglect. 

Section 9. Whoever sells, barters, or offers for sale or barter, or 
attempts to sell or barter, any neat cattle sick or diseased with the 
pleuro-pneumonia, or which he has reason to suspect to be so diseased, 
or to have been exposed to said disease, except with the license of said 
commissioners, or either of them, or who sells or barters, offers for sale or 
barter, or attempts in any way to dispose of the flesh of any such sick 
or diseased creature, except in the mode prescribed by such commission- 
ers, shall be punished by fine not more than one thousand dollars, and 
imprisonment in the county jail not more than three years. 

Section 10. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to impair the 
powers given.to said, commissioners by the act to which this is in addition. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 19 

Said commissioners may also cause any cattle, that are sick of said 
disease, or suspected to be so sick, or that have been exposed thereto, 
to be isolated and kept apart from all other cattle, either on the premises 
of the owner or elsewhere. They may also employ all subordinate 
agents necessary or expedient for the discharge of their duties. They 
may also cause to be destroyed any hay or fodder, and other things, 
and disinfect buildings, building materials and fixtures which they shall 
deem necessary to prevent the spread or secure the extirpation of said 
disease. 



A Member. — Dr. Loring, how much money do you think is 
required ? 

Dr. Loring. — The report which the Commission have made to 
the governor states that they have killed 842 cattle ; and an 
estimate carefully made shows that there are a thousand head 
of cattle which must either be killed or isolated for such a 
length of time as to satisfy parties that they have no disease 
about them. The amount already expended in the appraisal, 
is a little rising twenty thousand dollars. That is the amount 
of the appraisal for cattle already killed. The expenses of this 
matter are not included in that ; what they are we do not know 
precisely. We have been obliged to employ men to assist us, 
and to pay farmers for killing and burying cattle, as it seemed 
a hardship for them not to be paid. The amount of money 
required, it is impossible to estimate accurately. 

Q. — How much money has been involved in these operations ? 

A. — I suppose from twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars. 
The appropriation of the last legislature was ten thousand dol- 
lars. When that sum had been expended, the Commissioners 
waited upon the governor and upon the Board of Agriculture 
to ask for instructions, advice and cooperation. At that time, a 
paper was drawn up proposing to establish a guaranty fund, in 
order to enable the Commissioners to proceed, and to secure in 
some way the payment to the farmers of the losses they incurred. 
When that fund had reached ten or fifteen thousand dollars, a 
paper was drawn up and signed by all the farmers who lost 
their cattle, stating that they were perfectly willing that the 
Commissioners should go forward and prosecute their duty, 
and they would wait for their pay till the legislature could pass 
upon the matter, not relinquishing their rights to this guaranty 



20 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

fund. The farmers were uniformly anxious that the matter 
should progress, and to run their proportion of the risk. 

I heard the amount of appropriation required stated at 
8100,000. I should be very much astonished if $50,000 did 
not finish the business, — besides what has been expended. I 
have no question that that would cover the whole amount of 
expense as it stands to-day. I will state the reasons why I have 
no sort of doubt of the speedy extermination of the disease. I 
am satisfied that on the western line of this disease the progress 
has stopped. On the line of the road running from West Brook- 
field to Ware, with the exception of a number of cattle which 
were killed in Pelham, — a very ordinary farming town, where 
there are few cattle, — and which were driven over from Brook- 
field, I don't think the disease has gone. In Pelham, I 
think it has entirely stopped. I understand there is a little 
fear about it to-day, but nothing decisive. But on the road 
from West Brookfield to Ware, the disease is thoroughly exter- 
minated, I have no doubt. And the Commissioners have every 
reason to suppose the disease may be entirely eradicated by 
proper measures. 

Q. — Have any measures been taken to disinfect any premises? 

A. — The farmers who had lost their cattle were requested to 
whitewash their barns inside thoroughly, and the Commission, 
— before I was put upon it, — purchased some tons of a dis- 
infecting powder for the advantage of the persons who wished 
to use it. In some places, that disinfecting process has gone on. 
We advised it to be done as early as possible, in order that they 
might put their hay into their barns this coming season. 

Q. — Do you know of any disease beyond the Connecticut 
River ? 

A. — I have no idea of a case west of the Connecticut River, 
and I have no idea of any in Essex County, where it has been 
reported. A great many cases brought to the notice of the 
Commissioners are mere matters of suspicion. I am satisfied 
that no case has occurred in the Commonwealth or out of it 
that cannot be traced directly to exposure. 

Q. — Have you in all cases allowed damages when you killed 
cattle ? 

A. — So far as my knowledge goes, we have. 

Q. — Whether they were diseased or not ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 21 

A. — Oh no, Sir. The practice adopted by the Commissioners 
was, whenever a herd of cattle was found exposed, the cattle 
were appraised, and a surgeon was appointed to pass judgment 
upon the number of diseased animals. After that judgment, 
the remaining animals that were pronounced sound, were 
killed, and passed, — as in the case of Mr. Stoddard, — to the 
credit of the owner, after an appraisement made by three per- 
sons. 

Q. — In point of fact were those animals sound or unsound ? 

A. — That is a very difficult question to answer. The Com- 
mission have been as careful and stringent as possible in pro- 
nouncing upon diseased animals. They have been entirely 
unwilling to incur any excessive debt on the part of the Com- 
monwealth ; and they have been very unwilling that any farmer 
should suffer unnecessarily. My impression is that nearly all 
the animals that have been pronounced sound were so. 

Q. — In point of fact, were those animals, after the surgeon 
passed upon them, and you took those that he pronounced 
unsound and killed them, — were the others sound ? 

A. — They were so far as I know. 

Q. — Were they examined ? 

A. — They were not examined. The law provides that they 
shall not be. The law provides that the cattle shall be ap- 
praised and judgment passed upon them. We had not that 
matter at our option. 

Q. — In the appraising of these cattle were imported prices 
placed upon that kind of stock ? 

A. — No, Sir, not that I am aware of. I was not put upon the 
Commission until after the visit to Chenery's herd, and don't 
know what was paid him. Of course, the fair market prices 
were paid for all cattle. Mr. Walker says the average is about 
thirty-three dollars a head. That is not very high, considering 
it is a very good cattle region about Brookfield, and that a great 
portion of those killed were oxen. 

Q. — Do I understand you, Dr. Loring, that these cattle that 
were judged to be healthy, but had been exposed and were 
subsequently killed, have not been examined ? 

A. — They have not been examined. 

Q. — Out of the eight hundred, what portion were diseased 
and what were not ? 



'2-2 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — The Commissioners have no accurate knowledge of what 
number of that eight hundred and forty were actually diseased 
and what were not. They have nothing except the pronounce- 
ment of the surgeon himself. But I would state to the Com- 
mittee that in no case has an animal been pronounced diseased 
that it was not found so. 

Q. — I would ask how many animals have died of the disease ? 

A. — About seventy. Some little statement may be interest- 
ing as to the condition of the disease when it was found by the 
Commissioners. You will remember that it has been in 
Mr. Chenery's herd more than a year. It is now a year, the 
23d of May, since the diseased cattle were brought into this 
country. The probability is, that Mr. Chenery has not a sound 
animal in his whole stables. He has lost thirty, and has thirty left, 
and the probability is that not one sound animal remains. On 
the 28th of June, the disease was transported from Mr. Chene- 
ry's herd to Mr. Stoddard's, in North Brookfield. Mr. Stod- 
dard has had it therefore in his stable nearly a year, or had, 
when his herd was exterminated. I forget the precise number, 
but Mr. Stoddard had lost a great many cattle, I think fifteen. 
A very large portion of the remainder were condemned as dis- 
eased, and the condition of the remainder I would not attempt 
to say any thing about, although I have my opinion about it. 
The herds exposed to Mr. Stoddard's, last autumn, or when 
they came to the fall feeding, — all those herds exposed early in 
the autumn, presented unmistakable and very extensive signs 
of disease. Now let us come down to a period more recent. 
Animals exposed to animals brought from Mr. Stoddard's, on 
the first of November, and transported from one place to 
another, and carrying the exposure with them, in the early 
part of the winter, presented slight marks of the disease. The 
longer it lodges in a region, the more decided and fixed it is ; 
so that it is in one solid mass in North Brookfield, apparent, 
distinct and unequivocal. Any body can find it there to any 
extent ; and it radiates from that point, more or less, according 
to the time it has been carried. Now the Commissioners have 
thought and they still think, that there is no reason why Pel- 
ham, for instance, after a year's exposure, should not be as 
badly off as North Brookfield ,-^-or why any other town where 
the seed had been sown and the crop ripened, should not be just 
as badly off as North Brookfield. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 23 

Q. — You believe that the disease can be exterminated ? 

A. — I have no question about it. I think it is one of those 
distinct and certain things that can be traced and stopped exactly 
where it is carried. I have no question about the success of 
the Commissioners, if they are empowered to put a stop to the 
disease wherever they encounter it. 

Q. — -Is contagion the only mode of communicating it ? 

A. — I conceive that it is, entirely. I have never seen a case 
that I could not trace to Stoddard's or Chenery's herd. The 
question was asked me in the Board of Agriculture, by Dr. 
Bartlett, Why the disease did not extend from Mr. Chenery's 
barn in Belmont ? Why has not Mr. Chenery's herd sent it 
about ? My reply was, he has sent it about. He shut it 
up in his own barn, but he took an animal out of his barn and 
carried it to North Brookfield, and it broke out there as if he 
had thrown a fire-brand into a powder barrel. No man can 
lock an epidemic up in his house. You cannot monopolize 
such a thing as that. It is because it is a contagious disease, 
that it has not gone from Mr. Chenery, except when he sent an 
animal into a neighborhood where cattle come in contact and 
are passing back and forth continually. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman here, who has had a good 
deal of observation in regard to this disease, and I think it 
would be interesting to hear what his experience has been. 1 
allude to the Rev. Mr. Lindley, from South Africa, who has 
seen the disease there to a considerable extent. 

Adjourned to twelve o'clock, Friday. 



SEC OND DAY. 

Friday, June 1. 

The Committee met at 12J o'clock, and the examination of 
Dr. Loring was resumed. 

Mr. Wentworth. — How many cattle have been killed that 
had, in the judgment of their owners, commenced to recover? 
A. — That, it is impossible for me to tell. 
Q. — So far as you know ? 



U PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I cannot give any sort of a statement about it, because 
the owners themselves were wholly ignorant ; they expressed no 
opinion upon the matter. 

Q. — Do you not know of cases in which cattle have been 
killed, where you have been informed by their owners that 
they had been sick, but were getting better, or appeared to be 
better ? 

A. — We have killed animals which had been sick, and in 
reference to which the owners expressed an opinion that they 
were getting better. 

Q.— Was that opinion founded upon any facts disclosed to 
the Commission, such as improved appetite, appearing more 
lively, and so forth ? 

A. — No, Sir, it was merely an expression of opinion. 

Q. — Did you examine them to see whether they were appar- 
ently getting better or not ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, we did. After they were killed we examined 
them to ascertain, as far as possible, the physical condition of 
the animal at that time. It was impossible for us to tell 
whether the animal was getting better or not, because we had 
no data to make our comparison upon. 

Q. — Assuming the statements made by the owner with 
regard to the previous state of the creature to have been cor- 
rect, was it not getting better, in your judgment ? 

A. — So far as external appearances went, the animal was 
getting better. 

Q. — Were there many such cases ? 

A. — I remember only one or two. 

Q. — On examining those animals, after they were killed, 
what was your opinion then ? 

A. — There were unmistakable marks of disease. 

Q. — Did they bear the appearance of recovery ? 

A. — They bore the appearance of having the disease in a 
circumscribed condition, if I may use the term. I can cite a 
case in illustration, if it would be satisfactory to the Commit- 
tee to hear it. 

Mr. Wentworth. State whatever you deem important in 
regard to the matter. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 25 

Witness. — I remember one case, distinctly. It was that of 
the ox belonging to Mr. Doane, which has been referred to as 
having imparted the disease to twenty-three yoke of oxen in 
one team. That ox was killed, perhaps within a month. He 
had, early in the winter, given indications of the disease, such 
as we found there, and the question which arose at the time 
he was killed, was what the appearance of the disease would 
be in that animal. As he was led out of the stable, any one 
would have said, " He looks well enough." He was a very 
good looking red ox — a large Devon, a breed known to all 
farmers ; that is a sufficient description of the animal. Any 
body would have bought him to fatten, either in stall or 
pasture. He had, however, at the same time, a slightly pinched 
appearance, and any one would have said, " He don't look 
exactly right, either ;" and an acute observer of cattle would 
have hesitated about buying him. He was taken out and 
killed by the Commissioners, because it was known that he 
had been exposed to the disease — he having been in Mr. Leon- 
ard Stoddard's yard when the disease was there — and it was 
understood and known that he had imparted the disease to the 
twenty-three yoke of oxen in the team. Now the question 
with the Commissioners was, after the animal was slaughtered, 
what condition of the disease shall we find in those lungs ? 
Will it be that usually found in the early stages of the disease 
which has been called hepatization ? Will there be the effusion 
of serum ordinarily found in the chest ? Will there be hypertro- 
phy of the lungs, very commonly found ? Will there be thicken- 
ing of the serous covering of the lungs, and will they be in a 
state of carnification, or will it be that circumscribed condition 
of the disease, in its chronic form, where nature seems to have 
separated the diseased part from a healthy part, and impacted 
it there during the life of the animal ? The general external 
appearance of the lungs was that of fair health. The serous 
covering of the lungs was a little thickened and there was not 
that pink, healthy appearance which is usually found in the 
healthy subject. Upon cutting into the lower lobe of the right 
lung, a portion of diseased matter, perhaps half as large again 
as a goose egg, was found enclosed in a fibrous sac about the 
strength and consistency of the lining membrane of a fowl's 
gizzard, and about the same color. This substance, of the size 
4 



26 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

of which I speak, resembled decayed Stilton cheese in color, 
but considerably harder in consistency. It was entirely sepa- 
rated from the rest of the lung. On splitting the cyst open, it 
fell out and lay there, a mass of curdy looking matter, for the 
inspection of the Commissioners. That was a case, Sir, in 
which the disease was there in the lung of the animal, and it 
stopped there. 

Q. — Did the rest of the lung appear to be healthy ? 

A. — Fairly healthy ; when the lung was cut, the fine nice 
crepitas which is heard in cutting the healthy lung, and which 
every butcher and surgeon knows, was not to be heard. A 
portion of the lower lobe of the lung, in which this disease 
had been isolated, cut much like the muscle of young veal or 
chicken ; not with that fine, sharp, clear crackling which you 
hear when cutting a healthy lung. 

Q. — Would you not think it probable that that diseased 
portion might have been absorbed, and eventually removed ? 

A. — No, Sir, I think it would have remained there to the 
end of the animal's life. I do not think there were any 
absorbents at work upon it. I think nature had set up a 
process of separation, had accomplished it, had enclosed the 
disease in a sac, and there left it. I think every surgeon and 
physician would see an analogy between such a case as that 
and the case, frequently found in the human subject, of an old 
tuberculous deposit in the lungs, which may have been there 
forty years, and have been carried through life without any 
apparent injury to the person in whose lung it existed. 

Q. — And you believe this ox would have lived without being 
materially injured ? 

A. — 1 have no doubt he would have lived, but whether he 
would have been an able-bodied ox would have been a question. 
I think that a man who was about purchasing an ox would rather 
have one with healthy than diseased lungs. I suppose that a 
farmer would not be very apt to select a man to work for him 
who had had hemorrhage of the lungs, or who had tubercles in 
them. 

Q. — Do you think he would have communicated the disease ? 

A. — That is a very important question, and it is one that we 
have investigated to the extent of our ability. We have 
endeavored to ascertain from the authorities in Europe, and 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 27 

from observations made here, the point of time when the dis- 
ease fails to be communicable. I will state a case which came 
under our observation on that point. A yoke of oxen were 
sent from West Brookfield, from a part near the depot to the 
northern portion of the town, somewhere about the 20th of 
January. They were sent to the farm of Mr. Gleason. He 
kept them until the last of March. He had noticed that they 
did not do very well, and sold them to Mr. Makepeace, I think 
on the 28th of March. Mr. Makepeace took them home, and 
when he got them there, he found the oxen were lame. Sup- 
posing that the lameness was owing to their want of shoeing, 
or to improper shoeing, he had the shoes set, but the near ox 
was still crippled. Mr. Makepeace worked him through the 
spring, but he did not thrive ; he took on no flesh, and when I 
saw him he was in precisely the condition that farmers usually 
describe as " foundered." Many men would have said, that ox 
has been mealed too hard ; he is good for nothing, and never 
will be. The animals, as I stated, went into Mr. Gleason's 
hands about the 20th of January, as near as we could ascertain. 
We found the disease in Mr. Gleason's barn. Any man would 
have said that some disease was there. We found the Pleuro- 
pneumonia was there, I should think about the last of April. 
The question came up, " How came it there ? Was it from 
this same yoke of oxen, or from some other animal ? " He 
had purchased a doubtful cow that had been carried there, and 
we thought it might be attributable to her. Mr. Gleason's 
herd was taken possession of by the Commissioners. We 
followed that yoke of oxen to Mr. Makepeace's, and there 
they were killed. They presented a very extensive — almost 
carnification — hepatization of the lungs. The lungs did not 
collapse; their weight was more than twice the ordinary weight 
of healthy lungs. They were almost impervious to air. The 
bronchial tubes would admit a very little air ; but the air cells 
seemed to be entirely destroyed. There was but a very small 
portion of either lung which was in such a condition as to be of 
any practical service to the animal. Then the question imme- 
diately arose, whether Mr. Makepeace had got Pleuro-Penumonia 
in his herd. These cattle had unquestionably given it to 
Mr. Gleason's herd some time between the twentieth of January 
and the last of March. Now the question arose, whether they 



28 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

had given it to Mr. Makepeace's herd, into which they had gone 
after they had been a long time sick, and in what is unques- 
tionably to be called a chronic condition of the disease. 
Mr. Makepeace's herd was examined in the best way in our 
power — by percussion and auscultation — by the best tests we 
had. They were examined as far as their natural signs were 
concerned — the appearance of their coats and eyes — every thing 
about them by which a farmer would judge of his cattle. There 
was no cough ; they looked well ; but in order to put the matter 
to a still further test, the cow that looked poorer than the rest 
was taken out and killed, and she gave no signs of disease in 
the lungs. 

The solution seemed to be this — that these animals were in 
Mr. Gleason's herd while suffering under an active condition of 
the disease, and communicated it ; and that they went into the 
other herd with the chronic condition of the disease, without 
the ability to impart it. This was the conclusion to which we 
arrived. We have had no other case that would enable us to 
test the question. I do not say that our conclusion is correct, 
because the best investigators in Europe have been unable to 
decide at what stage the disease becomes incommunicable. 

Q. — As a medical man, taking the first case, do you not 
think that the ox had passed the period when he could commu- 
nicate the disease ? 

A. — I should think he had. 

Q. — In your judgment, what is the latent period of this 
disease ? 

A. — If you mean, the time between the taking of the dis- 
ease and its appearance, it is impossible to tell. Mr. Chenery's 
animals, which were brought from Holland to this country, had 
the disease with them. They were some of them in such a 
condition when they were landed here, that it was with difficulty 
they could be taken to his farm at Belmont. Mr. Chenery's 
calves, that he sent to North Brookfield, communicated the 
disease to Mr. Stoddard's oxen within a fortnight, and in ten 
days, three of his cattle were dead. An animal sent from Hol- 
land, or some part of Europe, to Australia, (the account is 
authentic, and published in an official document,) carried the 
disease with him the whole passage, without presenting any 
appearance of it ; it broke out when he arrived there, and was 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 29 

communicated to the herd of a person there, which herd was 
exterminated, and the disease stopped. I do not know what the 
time is. I do not know that it is possible to ascertain it. 

Q. — Has there been, at any stage of the disease, an examina- 
tion of the blood ? 

A. — I do not know that there has been, either here or any 
where. I never have heard of any. 

Q. — In your judgment, is not the blood primarily affected 
with this disease ? 

A. — I have no question about it myself. I suppose it would 
depend somewhat upon the medical theory adopted, as to 
whether fluids or solids take the disease. 

Q. — If it be communicable by inoculation, must not the 
blood be affected by it ? 

A. — I should have no doubt of it. I would not say positively. 
I should suppose that some fluid in the body must be affected. 

Q. — In your judgment, is the disease a contagious one ? 

A. — Entirely so. 

Q. — How is it communicated ? by the breath, the saliva, or 
actual contact ? 

A. — I have no doubt that it is communicated by the breath, 
by the exhalations from the bodies of the animals, and by the 
mucous discharges, if there are any, from the throat and nose 
of the diseased animals. I think the opinion expressed by 
examiners in Europe is entirely correct — that a diseased animal, 
confined in a close apartment with any number of sound animals, 
will infect the air of that apartment in such a way that all the 
animals in it that are capable of taking the disease, will take it. 

Q. — In your judgment, is this disease pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, as far as I can ascertain from the best exami- 
nation I have been able to give. 

Q. — Have you ever known any disease of the lungs or pleura 
to be contagious in the animal kingdom ? 

A. — I have never known any other disease of the lungs to be 
contagious in the animal kingdom. I mean, specific disease of 
the lungs. The disease has been named pleuro-pneumonia, 
but it is not the common pleuro-pneumonia. It has been desig- 
nated in Europe, exudative and contagious pleuro-pneumonia, 
in order to distinguish it from that form of pleuro-pneumonia 
which is pure acute disease of the pleura and lungs. The 



80 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

name was given it in order to signify what organs were dis- 
eased. 

Q. — In what is it distinguishable from the real pleuropneu- 
monia, as known to physicians ? 

A. — I should think that the general point of distinction was 
this — that in this disease, the inflammation was what might be 
called sub-acute inflammation, whereas, in the common form, 
the inflammation is acute and rapid. I think it is doubtful 
whether this disease would ever end in that form which is called 
gray hepatization, in which the body of the lung is filled with 
pints of pus, following on the acute stage of the inflammation. 
That is as near as I can come at it, for my medical knowledge 
has been some time out of practice. I have never seen that 
form of red hepatization which is seen in common pneumonia. 
In this case, the hepatization was more confined — not lobular, 
not confined to the lobes of the lungs ; but I have seen it 
stratified, so to speak ; a stratum of hepatization and a stratum 
of healthy lung. 

Q. — Do you know whether the pleura or the lung is first 
affected ? 

A. — No, Sir, I do not. 

Q. — Have you ever seen the lungs in this disease when they 
were inflamed, and if so, what was the nature of the inflam- 
mation ? 

A. — I have seen them when they presented the appearance 
of being inflamed. It is that form of inflammation which is 
designated as sub-acute. They presented the appearance of 
congestion. I have seen the pleura in that condition. I have 
seen some of the most beautiful specimens of the ordinary 
injected appearance of the serous membranes in this disease. 

Q. — How would you describe this inflammation ? Was it 
local or general ? 

A. — In some cases, it would be diffused over the whole of the 
lungs ; in other cases, it would be circumscribed and limited to 
the lungs themselves. I have seen lungs in which the hepatiza- 
tion — call it inflammation or not — or injected condition, was 
very much diffused, and others in which it was very much cir- 
cumscribed. 

Q. — Have you seen any matter generated by this disease 
escape from the cattle ? 

A— No, Sir. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 31 

Q. — Have you seen any matter in the lungs themselves — any 
pus? 

A. — In one case, I saw an abscess which discharged pus. 

Q. — What was the character of the pus ? 

A. — It had the appearance of ordinary pus, which has been 
confined in an abscess ; what might be called scrofulous. 

Q. — Have you seen many such instances ? 

A. — I do not remember more than one or two. 

Q. — Have you had an opportunity to see cattle killed fre- 
quently ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Is it an uncommon thing to find unhealthy lungs in 
cattle that pass for healthy ? 

A. — I should think it was. 

Q. — Did you ever see one ? 

A. — I never saw a diseased lung taken from an animal killed 
in a healthy beef condition. 

Q. — Have you never heard of any such case ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — At what time did you take your place upon the Com- 
mission ? 

A. — I forget, Sir. I think about the 12th of April ; perhaps 
after the middle of April. 

Q. — Since you have been on the Commission, has any thing 
been done with a view to curing any of these cases ? 

A—No, Sir. 

Q. — Has any examination been made by the Commission 
with a view to attempting a cure ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Previous to your taking a place upon the Commission, 
do you know whether any attempt was made to cure, or any 
examination made with a view to attempting a cure ? 

A. — No, Sir; I never heard of any. I do not understand 
that the attempt has been made in any case. 

Q. — Do you know whether any attempts to cure were made 
before the Commission was appointed ? 

A. — I know that attempts were made by private parties. 
But the Commissioners, acting under the appointment of the 
legislature, did not conceive it to come within their province to 



32 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

attempt to cure the disease. We conceived it to be our duty 
to extirpate it. 

Q. — And you have no plan to propose other than the course 
you have adopted ? 

A. — The plan of the Commissioners is contained in the act 
which was submitted as coming from the attorney-general's 
office. 

Q. — You would say that that is your general plan, subject 
to such variations as might be suggested ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Mr. Woodman. — What is the view of the Commission in 
reference to the establishment of a hospital for the study of 
the disease and its cure ? 

A. — I am not aware what the view of the entire Commis- 
sion is ; I am perfectly free to express my own opinion upon it 
— that it is utterly futile. I never saw a cow that I thought was 
worth curing, if the expense of her cure would cost more than 
thirty dollars. I don't understand that the effecting of a cure 
would insure us against the spread of the disease. That is the 
point we want to come at. 

Mr. Wentworth. — Suppose an ox worth a hundred dollars ? 

A. — That would change the question, unless the surgeon's 
bill ran up above that amount. Such bills increase rapidly. 

Q. — Do you understand that cases without treatment are 
always fatal ? 

A. — No, Sir, they are not. 

Q. — What proportion are fatal without treatment ? 

A. — It depends somewhat upon the locality, and the condi- 
tion of the animal. 

Q. — Suppose them to be favorable in both cases ? 

A. — I should suppose that from fifteen to twenty per cent, 
would be fatal ; that is, taking the most favorable conditions 
under which the disease exists. In the present condition of 
the disease on the south side of the Thames, it is said that 
ninety-five per cent, are fatal. 

Q. — Would it not pay to isolate the herds ? 

A. — I have no question that it would, where it could be 
done in an economical and proper manner. The Commission 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 33 

ers, in one or two instances, have done so, and they have no 
doubt that they have done it with success. They did it on 
their own responsibility, as a matter of economy to the Com- 
monwealth. 

Q. — Do you not think the system of isolation might be 
carried out ? 

J..— Possibly it might be adopted with good effect ; it would 
depend altogether upon how long a time the system of isolation 
would have to be maintained. If adopted by the Common- 
wealth, it would be attended with such large expense, that it 
would be impracticable. I think it would be more practicable 
to kill, and certainly it would be more effectual. To illustrate 
this, suppose that on the 29th of last June, Mr. Chenery had 
killed his whole herd, instead of sending the calves to North 
Brookfield ; I suppose no one doubts that that would have 
ended the disease. Now if that is true, it would be equally 
true in regard to the present state of the disease on a much 
larger scale. I have no doubt that a combination of extir- 
pation and isolation would stay the progress of the disease. 

Q. — Was not Mr. Chenery's herd isolated ? 

A. — It has been very generally isolated. He is not a cattle 
dealer. He purchased his stock and has kept it very much to 
itself. Since the disease has been raging to such an extent, he 
has been compelled to keep the whole herd, and with the 
exception of the animals sent to North Brookfield, and one 
cow which 1 know of his having sold to a gentleman near him, 
(which cow is now sick,) no animal has been sent out. 

Q. — There has been no instance of any communication 
between his cattle and any of his neighbor's herds ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q.— Is it unusual to find marks of disease in animals that 
are uncommonly fat ? 

A. — I have seen marks of disease in the liver, but not in the 
lungs. 

Q. — Any in the heart ? 

A. — I do not remember any in the heart, but I have seen the 
liver of very fat oxen, (stall-fed cattle particularly,) very much 
diseased. 

Q. — What would be the effect upon the beef, if the animal 
were killed before any manifestation of the disease ? 



34 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — That is a very difficult question to answer. I should 
suppose the effect of it, certainly, could not be beneficial. 

Q. — Supposing it to be a poison in the blood ? 

A. — Then certainly it could not be beneficial. It is possible, 
however, that the effects of heat in cooking might dispel the 
poison, so that the meat might be nutritious and healthful. 

Q. — What is the limit of distance within which the disease 
is communicated ? 

A. — I have no doubt that the distance within which it is com- 
municable depends very much upon the state of the atmos- 
phere and the condition of the animal. When the diseased 
animal is kept in a barn, it may be carried a hundred feet or 
more. It has been carried across a road, with a slight wind 
and in a heavy state of the atmosphere. Precisely how far it 
may be carried, I cannot say, — perhaps two or three rods. 

Q. — Is it communicable by the clothing of the attendants ? 

A. — That is a question I cannot answer. It is supposed to 
be so in Europe. It is thought that the herdsmen who attend 
cattle badly diseased may carry the disease in their clothing, 
and they are therefore kept away from healthy herds. I have 
been very careful, myself, after having been into barns where 
the disease existed, — of course in the spring of the year they 
are very hot, and with a good deal of moisture,— to take off 
the clothes I wore there, and put on others before I went into 
my own stables, feeling that it was an act of safety, at least. 

Q. — What number of cattle did Mr. Chenery's herd consist 
of? 

A. — It consisted, originally, of sixty head of cattle. I think 
he has lost about thirty, and has about thirty left. 

Q. — That would be about 50 per cent, of fatality in his herd ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. There were two or three cattle that were 
found very much diseased, and that would unquestionably have 
died if they had not been killed. 

Q. — Do you know whether that herd has been subjected to 
medical treatment ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. It was submitted to the care of a very skil- 
ful veterinary surgeon all last winter. He brought me a por- 
tion of the lung of one of the diseased animals last November, 
sometime before there was any excitement in regard to the 
matter, and before I was aware that there was any contagious 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 35 

disease there. The condition of the lung was very peculiar. 
I did not understand it then, and I had never seen any thing 
like it before. 

Q. — Were there any adhesions of matter in that case ? 

A. — No, Sir, there were not. 

Q. — Where there are adhesions as the result of the disease, it 
implies a more active state of inflammation in the earlier stages ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Do you make a distinction between congestion and hepa- 
tization ? 

A.— I used that word [congestion] because I knew it would 
convey to all medical men a more perfect understanding of the 
condition of the lungs. 

Q. — Would not a congested condition of the lungs more 
clearly imply a bad condition of the blood of the animal ? 

A. — That it would be impossible to tell. A purely con- 
gested condition of the lungs would imply pulmonary apoplexy. 
The adhesion of the substance of the lungs, in this disease, 
would indicate that it was not pure congestion. 

Q. — In your judgment, would the daily secretions convey 
the disease ? , 

A. — I should suppose they might, Sir. 

Q. — If the cyst contained the diseased portion, may it not 
have been softened, and then absorbed and carried off? 

A. — I do not think the inner lining of the cyst had any 
active force in it, but simply circulation enough to keep it in 
existence. I do not think there were any absorbents in it. I 
think the whole circulation was cut off by the disease from the 
contents of this cyst, just exactly as if, instead of this diseased 
matter being separated, it had been a portion of bone lying 
there, or a bullet. It was precisely in the condition of a foreign 
body lying there. 

Mr. Bird.— I understand that the Commissioners are not 
agreed upon either of the three plans that have been sub- 
mitted. 

A. — I am not aware that they differ materially in regard to 
the plan I have mentioned. Perhaps some small items may be 
objectionable. 

Q.- — As a matter of fact, the Commissioners have not agreed 
upon any plan ? 



36 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

A. — We have not. We supposed that was for the committee 
and the legislature to decide. We have our own views upon 
the matter. I am not sure that the Report indicates an inten- 
tion of killing exclusively. I think it speaks of isolation. 

Q.— Have you ever seen any effusions in the cavity of the 
pleura ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, they are very common in these cases. 

Q. — One hundred and eighty-five animals are reported as 
having been killed. How many of those, upon subsequent 
examination, appeared to be diseased? 

A. — They were not all examined, but all that were examined 
were diseased. 

Q. — How many were examined ? 

A. — The larger portion of them. 

Q. — How many ? 

A. — I do not know, Sir. 

Q.— How many, do you think, did you examine yourself? 

A. — I do not know, Sir. 

Q. — In what stage of this disease do you regard it as con- 
tagious ? 

A.— I have stated already that I was not aware of any partic- 
ular stage in which the disease is not contagious. I am satisfied 
that it is contagious in all its early stages, and 1 have the opin- 
ion of eminent surgeons in Europe to sustain me. How long 
it continues I do not know. Whenever the disease is in an 
active condition, it is contagious; and I think there are some 
facts which tend to show that while the disease may not exist 
in one portion of the lung, there may be in the other portion of 
the lung, or in the other lung, an active disease going on which 
may be contagious. 

Q. — Has the meat of these diseased cattle been used for food 
in Europe ? 

A. — The meat is used for food in some parts of England. 
The laws of England, as at present existing, are by no manner 
of means satisfactory either to the farming community or to 
scientific men, and it has been advised there that animals found 
diseased should be fattened at once. 

Q. — Would it not be impossible to fatten a diseased animal ? 

A. — It would be impossible to fatten an animal much dis- 
eased, but I have no doubt that the custom of high feeding 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 37 

adoptedjn England, and the slow progress of the disease, would 
allow a quick and rapid process of fattening. 

Mr. Bird. — You say that in some cases the disease has been 
communicated across a road ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, I think so. I think there is no question that 
the animals exposed to the disease in North Brookfield, were 
exposed at that distance. Animals were found diseased, and 
badly diseased, who took it standing in the road while the dis- 
eased animals were in a barn on the other side. 

Mr. Bird. — In other words, they had the disease after they 
had stood in the road ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, I am willing to take that correction. Every 
man knows that the atmosphere round a barn is filled with 
effluvia from it ; and I have no doubt that if a disease were in 
a barn, the poison would come out in that effluvia and commu- 
nicate the disease. 

Q. — Do you know of any cattle having been in a position 
to take the disease that have not taken it ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, the contagion is not universal. There are 
cases where animals have been exposed directly to the disease, 
and have not taken it. 

Q. — What is the general opinion as to what condition of the 
system would insure the animal from the disease ? 

A. — It is impossible to say. 

Q. — In your opinion, does the communication of the disease 
depend more upon the contagiousness of the air or the pre- 
existing condition of the animal ? 

A. — Upon neither, but upon a combination of both. 

Q. — You state that in certain cases, this disease has evidently 
been carried in the system weeks, months, perhaps years — long 
voyages at any rate. If that is the case, how can we know that 
we have ever arrested the progress of this disease here ? For 
instance, suppose you isolate the diseased animals and at the 
end of a year conclude that the disease has been eradicated ; it 
may be that four months before, it has been communicated to 
other animals. 

A. — All that is very true. We can simply judge by results. 
We may infer that a portion of territory which has been exempt 



38 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

from disease a certain number of months will continue to be 
exempt. 

Q. — Have you ever known of any cases of the disease arising 
spontaneously ? 

A. — No, Sir, I never have. I never have seen any case that 
could not be traced to Mr. Chenery's herd, either directly or 
indirectly. 

Q. — Did you make any other examination which disclosed 
phenomena similar to those which you particularly describe 
here — the partially coagulated matter enclosed in a cyst ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, we had several such cases. It is a common 
phenomenon. I do not know that I should say common — it is 
not unusual. 

Q. — Did you read the letter of Mr. Campbell in the 
Journal of yesterday ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Do you recognize the same disease in the one he 
describes ? 

A. — No, Sir. The disease he describes is very different from this. 

Q. — What did you think of his treatment ? 

A. — I thought it was very well for the disease he was treating. 

Q. — Do you know of its having been tried on cattle affected 
with this disease ? 

A. — I think it was tried by Dr. Saunders upon Mr. Chenery's 
cattle last year. I think he told me that was the course he 
pursued. Before I was aware of what the disease was, I fre- 
quently saw him and conversed with him in regard to it. 

Q. — How is the disease treated in Europe ? 

A. — The disease in Europe is looked upon like the steppe- 
murrain, the rinderpest, and all such diseases, and is now 
treated there by sanitary regulations, as far as possible. 

Mr. Bird. — This is the same disease that is found in Europe ? 
A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Then they have given up the practice of killing ? 
A. — No, Sir. I said sanitary regulations. Among these are 
very stringent ones for killing the cattle in some countries. 

Mr. Andrew. — Do you know whether they limit the killing to 
cattle actually diseased, or kill those that have been exposed ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 39 

A — They kill both, and pay for both. 

Q. — Do they kill all, as a general practice ? 

A — No, Sir, they isolate and kill. 

Q. — What is the rule of discrimination ? 

A. — They have adopted none. 

Q. — Then experience has developed no consistent system ? 

A. — The best system, as near as I can ascertain, is that 
adopted in Denmark ; and in that country, it has checked the 
progress of the disease, and, it is supposed, would have exter- 
minated it, had there not been further importations of cattle 
from Holland. The precise method of isolation which they 
adopt — whether they shut the animals up in barns, or enclose 
them in fields — I do not know. 

Q. — Where does this rule begin and leave off ? 

A. — They isolate animals said to be or found to be in a 
sound condition. They kill all animals that are diseased, or 
that have been so far exposed as to be considered badly 
diseased. 

Q.— Then, if they kill all those which are diseased, and 
which have been exposed, directly and immediately to infec- 
tion, what are left to be isolated ? 

A. — That is decided, as near as I can ascertain, by what is 
called the district veterinary surgeon. 

Q. — And his judgment is applied to each particular case ? 

A—Yes, Sir. 

Q. — And not governed by any general rule of science ? 

A. — I suppose a district veterinary surgeon of Denmark 
would apply all the science he had. 

Q. — But there is no rule that can be stated for the adoption 
of other people ? 

A. — None, except the rule I have already stated. Medicine, 
as near as I can ascertain, is a less exact science than law. 

Q. — What I wanted to find out was, whether, as yet, experi- 
ence has developed any rule of general application, so that 
men who should study the matter scientifically, in the light of 
other men's experience, would be able to see how far to extir- 
pate, and how far to isolate cattle, disease and how far the two 
could be modified, and how far you could apply either or both 
to any class of cases ? 



40 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I think that any intelligent man who had read the 
history of the disease, and the accounts which have been 
published, would be able to apply to individual cases the 
information he had obtained. 

Q. — Is there any general statement of the result to which 
science and experience have arrived that could be made, so 
that intelligent men could understand it ? 

A. — I do not know that 1 have stated it so that intelligent 
men could understand it, but I have stated one. I stated that 
the system adopted in Denmark was one of isolation and extir- 
pation ; that diseased animals were killed ; that those animals 
that were supposed to have been so exposed as to carry the 
disease, were also killed, and that healthy animals that had 
been exposed were isolated and kept away from other herds to 
prevent even a chance of their conveying the disease to others. 
That is the plan adopted in Denmark. 

Q. — Is that plan in print ? 

A. — It is in print. The accounts are found in English 
journals. 

Q. — You speak of isolation — do you mean the isolation of 
individual animals ? 

A. — I suppose it depends upon the particular case. The 
probability is, that the system is the shutting up of the herd 
of the person where the disease is found to exist, either in a 
barn or a field. I suppose it would not be individual isolation, 
unless the man had only one animal. That system we have 
adopted in North Brookfield. 

Q. — Would that not endanger the whole ? 

A. — The danger would be, that the disease would spread 
through that herd, and the advantage would be, that it would 
not go beyond it. To illustrate : we found that the herd of 
Mr. Gleason was diseased, and the animals were killed. It was 
found that the pastures around Mr. Gleason's had contained 
about thirty or forty head of cattle. They had been thus near 
to Mr. Gleason's about a year. The Commissioners inferred from 
the length of time which had passed, that the contagion could 
not have gone beyond that field. So they took the animals 
from the pastures surrounding Mr. Gleason's, and put them 
into his, and, in that way, shut out the whole disease from the 
surrounding country. That was one process of isolation. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 41 

There have been other cases, where we have had one single cow 
shut up, and others where parties have agreed to keep their 
animals shut up. 

Mr. Wentwoeth.— Do you know what degree of exposure to 
the infection constitutes such a liability to take the disease as 
would bring the animai within the rule requiring him to be 
killed ? 

A— -No, Sir ; I do not think there is any rule that can be 
followed. 

Q. — How long has that system been in existence in Denmark ? 

A.— I think it was adopted in 1845, for the first time. There 
fiad been appearances of the disease for a few months, that had 
troubled the farmers and the government a great deal, and in 
1845, this system was adopted, and adopted with entire success ; 
so much so., as I have said, that the best investigators of the 
matter have come to the conclusion, that had no more cattle 
•been brought into Denmark, they would have had no more of 
the disease. They attribute the recent appearance of the dis- 
ease to one hundred and eighty oxen brought into the country 
from Hungary. 

Q. — Has the Danish system commended itself to the English 
mind, so that it has been adopted there ? 

J..— It has commended, itself to the mind of the English 
farmers, and the English Commissioners, who have investigated 
the matter ; it has not so far recommended itself to English 
legislators that they have adopted it. 

Q. — Have not the British Parliament taken this matter up ? 

A.- — They have had commissioners to investigate it repeatedly ? 
and they have certain acts in reference to it. I cannot state 
precisely what those acts are, because I have not been able to 
ascertain ; I have seen an act passed in 1744 applicable to a 
disease then prevalent in. England— the rinderpest— a virulent 
and contagious disease. The question of recent legislation has 
been, whether they should increase the stringency of the acts 
already existing. 

Q. — If this disease is contagious, is it not also epidemic J 

A. — It is not supposed to be so. It has given no indications 
of being so in this country, and none that I am aware of in 
Europe. 



42 PLEUKO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Then you feel very confident that if any measures could 
be adopted that would restrain the contagion, it has no epidemic 
character that would make it dangerous ? 

A. — I should be perfectly willing that a herd of mine should 
be within half a mile of a diseased herd, if no diseased animal 
could come into it. 

Q. — Has that question arisen in the investigations which 
have taken place in England or in this country, and have scien- 
tific men of experience come to a conclusion as to whether it is 
epidemic or not 1 

A. — The best science that has been applied to it has agreed 
that it is not epidemic. 

Q.— Still there are two sides to the question, are there not 1 

A.— I don't think there are ; I have never heard but one. 
The question, in fact, has not been discussed in Europe, at all. 
So far as I have investigated, I have not found any authority on 
the other side. 

Q. — Then you consider it a well defined and clearly estab- 
lished contagious disease, as much so as the smallpox ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; and all the analogies, all comparisons that are- 
made in Europe, are made with such diseases as the smallpox. 

Mr. Bird. — Did you ever see any cases of the disease known 
as "hog cholera? " 

A. — I never have seen any. 

Mr. Bird. — I have been told that that is the same disease as 
this — that it affects the lungs in the same way. 

Witness. — I have never seen any cases of that disease ; 1 
have only seen newspaper statements that the lungs were 
diseased. 

Mr. Andrew. — When you come to this question of the con- 
tagiousness of the disease, is it at all certain how the infection 
is communicated * T whether its communication in all the three 
different methods is possible,, or whether it is uncertain as to 
which of the methods of communication is really operative I 

A. — I should think it was uncertain. 

Q. — Then the result of experience is simply this: that it is eon- 
eluded that the disease is contagious ; that different methods are- 
presented by which it may possibly be communicated, but it is not 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 43 

certain which actually communicates it ? The three methods 
are, by the breath, by the exhalations from the body, and by 
contact with the mucous discharges. Now, is it certain that it is 
communicated by any one, or any two, or by all three of these, 
or is it merely an inference from the possibility of communica- 
tion being made through all these methods ? 

A. — I look upon either of these as simply a modified form of 
the others. I do not mean to say they are identical, but I 
mean to say it is impossible to tell the way in which any con- 
tagious disease is imparted. 

Q. — You infer that in the case where it was communicated 
from across the highway, it must have been by the exhala- 
tions ? 

A. — I should think there must be going out from such dis- 
eased animals what might be called morbific poisons. 

Q. — They would go out too from the mucous discharges ? 

A. — I have no doubt that the diseases might be taken from 
the mucous discharges at the same time. That is, I suppose 
that if a diseased animal is tied up in a stable and fed in a 
stall, he would communicate the same disease to a healthy 
animal brought in and tied up at the same stall. 

Q. — Then this proves that it may be communicated without 
contact ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q.— Can you give any reason why this disease of the lungs 
is regarded as contagious, while other diseases of the lungs are 
not contagious, and have no feature corresponding with conta- 
gious diseases ? 

A. — There is no way of accounting for it that I know of. 
The argument at Amherst was, that this disease could not be 
contagious, because there is no disease of the lungs that is 
contagious. There was no answer to be made to it. If they 
were satisfied with the reasoning, we were. 

Mr. Bird. — The reasoning seemed one way, the facts the 
other. 

A. — We thought so, Sir. 

Mr. Andrew. — Now, do you think, that in truth and in fact, 
setting aside what may be learned from abroad, we have had 



U PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

in this country, facts enough from which to deduce a theory 
on the question of contagiousness ? 

A. — I think we have had facts enough to show us that the 
disease is contagious. I think those facts cannot be set 
aside. 

Q.— There has been no effort made through New England 
generally to ascertain whether sporadic cases have existed ? 

A. — No, Sir ; but there have been a great many examina- 
tions of cases which, if they were pleuro-pneumonia, would 
have been sporadic, and in no case has it proved to be the 
disease. 

Q. — How many cases of certainly established pleuro-pneu- 
monia have existed, to your knowledge ? 

A. — The Report states one hundred and eighty-five animals 
killed, a large portion of which were found to be diseased., 
Thirty animals died in Mr. Ohenery's herd, and, I believe.* 
about fifty in North Brookfield and thereabouts. 

Q. — Do you speak now of cases in which the existence of 
that particular form of disease was established by actual ex- 
amination ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I speak of the cases where post mortem ex- 
aminations indicated the presence of the disease. 

Q. — How many cases have existed in this Commonwealth in 
which post mortem examinations have been resorted to, and in 
which, by that examination, the existence of that disease has 
been ascertained ? 

A. — I should think about two hundred. 

Q. — That includes animals which have been killed, as well 
as those which have died naturally ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q.— How many have died naturally, in which the disease 
has been known to exist ? 

A. — From seventy to eighty. 

Q. — Who made most of those examinations beside yourself? 

A. — Dr. Dadd was with us. Dr. Saunders has made some 
examinations, and Dr. Thayer, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Martin. 

Adjourned to half past two o'clock. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 45 

Afternoon Session. 



Friday, June 1. 



The Committee met at 2 J. o'clock. 



By invitation of the Chairman, Rev. Daniel Lindley, lately 
a missionary in South Africa, made some statements to the 
Committee. 

He said :• — I wish to stand before this honorable Committee in 
the light of a witness, simply, to testify to facts, but not to give 
opinions. However, if after I shall have made my statement, 
gentlemen should be pleased to ask my opinion, if I have one, 
I will give it, and if not, I will say so. I will make my state- 
ments as succinct and brief as I can, and if I should not be 
distinctly apprehended by any member of this honorable Com- 
mittee, I hope he will then and there interrupt me. 

This disease, whatever be its name, and it has different names, 
was introduced into South Africa about six years ago, — I don't 
now remember the precise date, — but it is about six years. It 
was introduced from Holland, imported in the body of a bull. 
A gentleman in Cape Town, wishing to improve his stock, made 
that importation, and with it that disease which has been to 
South Africa the severest scourge that has ever fallen on its 
property interest. It was about six weeks after the animal 
landed, — he having been on board the vessel on the passage 
about two months, — before any sign of sickness appeared in 
him. At the time, it was not suspected that the disease was 
the lung contagion, so long known in Holland. However, he 
died. He communicated that disease to a considerable number 
of cattle, and before they became aware of the evil that threat- 
ened them, it had been scattered about very extensively. The 
question may arise in the minds of the Committee — Why was 
it not at once exterminated there, as you propose to have it here. 
The answer to this question will be found in this statement that 
I must make, in order that you may understand the circum- 
stances of that country. If you will imagine New England, 
and a great part of the United States, divested of its woods, its 
forests, leaving here and there thickets and jungles, and a grass 
country, that is without fences, without any enclosures, and all 
this country spread over with cattle by the thousand, — for the 



46 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

property of the inhabitants of the country consists in cattle and 
in sheep, — and over all the country cattle are grazing by the 
thousand. I have seen 1,600 in one herd, but generally the 
herds are from one to five hundred. In those parts of the 
country, where the lions and tigers have been exterminated, 
these cattle are allowed to roam night and day where they 
please, and they wander considerable distances, sometimes 
miles around. In addition to that, all the produce of the 
country that is brought to market, whether to supply the 
city of Cape Town, or Port Elizabeth, or other towns lying 
along the coast, is brought down from the interior in large 
wagons, drawn by oxen. All the goods imported into the 
country and taken inland are conveyed on these wagons, drawn 
by oxen ; and to each wagon the custom of the country gives 
six pairs of oxen. 

The country is large, — it being from Cape Town to the ex- 
tremity of any civilization in the interior, twelve hundred 
miles, and across, the plains to where I live 1,200 miles more. 
Well, this country is passed through, up and down, crosswise, 
and backward and forward, by hundreds of wagons and thou- 
sands of cattle every day. They have no railroads, no rivers, — 
no other way of transporting goods from one point to another, 
but this ox wagon. Well, they are great sheep raisers in this 
country, — having five to ten thousand sheep in a flock, — and I 
have seen as many as fourteen thousand in one flock. Their 
clips of wool are all sent down in these wagons to the coast. 

In a country of this kind, where there are so many cattle, 
and where every thing is done by means of cattle, and they are 
travelling night and day, there is no possibility of killing out 
this disease by extirpation. The seed had been so widely dis- 
seminated before the people knew what the matter was, that 
such a system was looked upon as hopeless, and the govern- 
ment adopted no measure to stay it, and every man was left to 
look out for his own interests. I will say, that after it had got 
fairly spread abroad to a considerable extent, the inhabitants 
very generally resorted to inoculation. And I will say in pass- 
ing, that we are indebted to that for about all the cattle we 
have left. We should have been flat on the ground, and no man 
could have got to the coast with his products or returned with 
his merchandise. Inoculation has saved us what we have, after 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 47 

six years. The disease was still at work when I came away, 
about a year ago, but was more under subjection. It has killed 
hundreds and thousands of cattle, and I can assure you, gentle- 
men, that where it has come into a flock, it has not left more 
than five out of a hundred. I was happily surprised when I 
heard Dr. Loring state that in the past year, in this State, not 
more than twenty per cent, had died. 

With us, when an animal is known as having the disease, we 
look upon it as already dead. And I can affirm, without hesi- 
tation, that where it has got into a herd of cattle, not more 
than five out of a hundred have been spared. Occasionally, one 
has passed through, and has not had the disease at all ; and a 
few on the other hand, — two or three in a hundred, — have 
recovered, and no more. I know of one man who had five hun- 
dred head of cattle, and that disease got in, and he had not five 
left. If I speak with emphasis, it is because I have had sad 
experience ; and I have been afraid that the good citizens of 
Massachusetts might not be aware of the evil that I do most 
firmly believe threatens their property interest more than any 
thing that ever threatened it yet. 

The disease has spread in every direction from Holland, and 
by contagion. I will give you facts on this matter of contagion. 
Well-meaning men, men of science, and who hold high and 
influential stations, said it was not contagious, that it was 
impossible for a lung disease to be contagious, and through 
their influence some herds suffered, that might, to my certain 
knowledge, have been saved. One of the commissioners 
appointed was a man of some science, and he said, " Poh ! 
poh ! it cannot be contagious," and the cattle were left, and 
the consequence is, it has spread over all the country around 
them. 

I will tell you how the disease came to my particular neigh- 
borhood. A native went out as a pedlar over the Cathumba 
Mountains, into the interior nearly 300 miles. There he took 
cattle in payment for goods. He brought down a herd of oxen 
to the eastern coast. While on the way down, some of his 
oxen became sick and he quietly put them out of the way, for 
he could travel one or two days, perhaps, and not see a single 
person, and the dead cattle were not likely to attract attention. 
He had that failing which we can pardon in others as we see 



48 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

it in ourselves, that he cared a little more for himself than he 
did for his neighbors. He put the sick oxen out of the way, 
and brought down the rest and sold them. They were bought 
by a gentleman who had about 120 oxen. The pedlar's cattle, 
looking apparently well, were put into that herd. Well, pres- 
ently the disease broke out. It was in that instance that this 
doctor had the influence to prevent the slaughter of that herd, 
because he said the affection was not contagious. Well, these 
cattle were running about in the neighborhood, — out on the 
plain twenty miles square, without fence and without tree, save 
here and there a bush, — where were grazing thousands of 
cattle, and they ran just where they pleased. From this flock, 
the contagion was communicated to all the cattle in the region. 
Oxen were travelling through the country every day — at least a 
hundred passing in a day — and in that way it was carried 
widely through the country. Until it was brought from a con- 
taminated region in the interior, by these oxen, the disease had 
never been within three hundred miles of us. I might give a 
thousand facts just equal to this, but I am mentioning what 
occurred in my neighborhood. 

The disease had not crossed to the northward, to the Ungani 
River, until this happened : A man wished to convey a boat 
from Port Natal to a place about sixty miles to the northward. 
He put the boat on a wagon and took his six yoke of oxen to 
draw it. He travelled one day, and camped just outside of a 
village through which he had passed. In the morning he found 
one of his oxen sick. He had camped on a piece of ground 
where cattle grazed every day, and in a place where the people 
had thought themselves safe. Finding his ox sick, he quietly 
took him and his mate out of the wagon and leaving them 
there, started on. These oxen remained through the day, and 
mixed with the many cattle owned in that village. The second 
day after they had been there, it was discovered that there was 
a sick ox in the field. The inhabitants were all out at once ; 
they killed the ox, and from the description, they saw that he 
had the disease they had dreaded. They immediately inocu- 
lated their cattle, and saved a goodly number of them. Now, 
in regard to that, I wish to make this statement. I made a 
statement, which was honestly reported, I suppose, but mis- 
takenly as a statement, that they had saved 90 per cent. ; in 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 49 

some instances not more than 30 per cent. Between this and 
90 is probably the average percentage saved. In that case, I 
mentioned that there was a clear, distinct instance, where the 
sickness had been brought from the interior three hundred 
miles ; and in the last case it was carried twenty miles. 

Another instance : two natives were trading, and brought 
the disease from the country where they went, two hundred 
miles, and set it down in a perfectly healthy region in a herd 
of about eighty cattle, and there it spread, and they were every 
one carried off. 

Another fact, one with which I had to do myself. A native, 
a stupid heathen native, was working for an Englishman in an 
infected region. He took his pay in cattle, — two calves, I 
think, a year or a year and a half old. He carried them into 
a healthy district where the disease had been kept out, and 
within twenty miles of which it was not known. Presently 
these calves fell sick and died, and the cattle with which they 
were placed began to be sick. I had in my service a young 
man belonging to that village. That was twelve miles from 
where I lived. A messenger came to this young man to say — 
" your cattle are sick." When I heard that, I began to inquire 
if any cattle had been brought from within the infected region 
to his kraal. They said such-a-one, naming the native before 
mentioned, had been working with a man and taken two head 
of cattle for his pay ; he came back a little more than two 
months ago with these cattle, and they took sick and died ; and 
now our other cattle are sick. I saw at once what the matter 
was, — for I knew that the region which these two cattle were 
taken from was wholly contaminated. I said, "your cattle 
will all die — you ought to tell your neighbors to keep their 
cattle away from you." I asked him further if his cattle had 
mixed with other cattle, and he said, " there are three kraals 
that have mixed with ours." So it was too late, and the result 
was that they all died. I suppose that in those four herds 
there were from one hundred to one hundred and thirty head 
of cattle, and they every one died. Well, I told the young 
man whom I sent, to go and warn his -neighbors. He did so, 
and they took their cattle in the opposite direction to grass, and 
for two years before I came away not a single head of the cattle 
around them had taken the disease. Just those that were 
7 



50 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

exposed to the contagion, and no others, died. The neighbors' 
cattle continued in a state of perfect health for two years after 
those four herds — one hundred or one hundred and thirty 
head — had died right out there in the heart of a healthy region, 
a region as large as a county. I cannot doubt that the disease 
was communicated by contagion, and that if the animals 
can be cut off, the disease will be kept off. It was kept off in 
the region in which Hived, in this way. The chief with whom 
I have lived occupies a considerable extent of territory, and he 
is fortunately fortified on one side by a range of mountains, 
and on the other by a precipice some hundred feet in height. 
He had assembled his tribe for another purpose, and wanting 
my advice in reference to some political difficulties, he sent a 
messenger to tell me of his trouble. I went to him, and after 
that matter was settled, I took occasion to tell him that the 
sickness was within some forty miles of us. I told him what 
the disease had done and would do, and I said to him, " there 
is just one thing to do, and that is, to keep your cattle where 
they are and not allow any to go out or come in." Well, the 
people there love their cattle, as they say, better than they love 
their lives. They took the alarm, and every effort that was 
made, on the part of any one, to bring cattle into the country, 
was immediately and stoutly resisted. The intruder was met 
with spear and shield, and threatened with death and destruc- 
tion to himself and his cattle if he came a step farther, and so 
was made to go back. Only half a mile off, within sight of 
these cattle, dead animals were lying unburied that had been 
exposed to this contagion. The disease was brought there by 
the oxen of an individual who had been into the interior, and 
when he came home his oxen died. They communicated the 
disease to all the cattle in that neighborhood, and I never saw 
more complete destruction. There was not a single head left 
in all those kraals. Those cattle came up to within half a mile 
of our boundary, and you could look down and see herds of 
them lying dead. That was three years ago, and yet, when I 
came away, the disease had not got one inch over that line. 

These are facts that I have seen and know, and in that country, 
if you should ask us, " Is the disease communicated by con- 
tagion?" we would say "Yes" and we should just as soon doubt 
that the sun made daylight. There are thousands upon thousands 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 51 

of facts to prove it. We have no more questions to ask on that 
subject. You will see how widely the disease might spread in 
a country like that, where cattle are so abundant, where the 
travel is continued day and night, and where thousands of 
oxen are on the road every twenty-four hours. It has been to 
that country a great scourge. Thousands and hundreds of 
thousands of cattle have died, and many of the people have 
been made poor by the ravages of the disease, and the only 
hope they have of securing a comfortable subsistence, and 
recovering a comfortable position in respect to property, is 
through sheep. They have given up all idea of grazing cattle, 
and are now turning their attention to sheep ; for the disease 
is so widely spread, that they have no hope that it will ever be 
exterminated. 

I do not know that I have any thing further to state. I 
might repeat hundreds and hundreds of facts of precisely this 
character. If I have appeared earnest in my statements — some- 
what as if I was making a speech, which is, perhaps, my 
profession — I hope you will not attribute it to any other motive 
than a wish to make you fear as I think you ought to fear. 
Massachusetts has enacted some glorious history, whereof you 
have famous monuments ; and I hope that pluck will not be 
wanting now. 

Mr. Walker. — How soon after exposure does the disease 
appear ? 

A. — The time varies ; anywhere along from two to four 
months ; but I should say, most commonly ten or eleven weeks 
after exposure. 

Q. — What weather seems to hasten it ? 

A. — We have noticed very little difference there ; our cli- 
mate is so uniform that we cannot give an opinion on that 
score. On my station, I have never seen frost. 

Q. — Over what extent of country did the disease spread ? 

A. — It has spread from Cape Town across the country 1,200 
miles ; and now it has gone up the north-east coast some 1,400 
miles from Cape Town. Before I left, it had gone inland 
beyond where we could get any account of the people, certainly 
1,300 or 1,400 miles, and it may be 2,000. 



52 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Have you personally examined those diseased animals ? 

A. — I have seen parts of the lungs at times ; but the disease 
had been so long in the country before it reached us — we were 
some 1,200 miles from its starting point, and it was nearly two 
years before it got there — and the matter had been so much 
discussed, and so much had been written about it, that we 
thought we knew all about it, and when cattle were taken sick, 
they were shot and buried without any examination. 

Q. — Were no efforts made to effect a cure ? 

A. — Some efforts were made, and some men professed to 
have discovered nostrums that would cure it ; but they lasted 
no longer than some patent medicines do. We looked upon a 
remedy for the disease as no better than a remedy for the dead. 

Q. — Still, I understand you to say that inoculation was par- 
tially successful ? 

A. — It was, Sir ; I will describe it briefly. I would say, in 
the first place, that inoculation was practised by every man for 
himself; and the heathen, who know nothing of such diseases, 
and who know so little that they believe that when the sun 
goes down to-night it will be a dead sun, and that a new one 
will rise to-morrow — thousands of such men inoculated their 
oxen by taking a part of the lung of an animal that had died of 
the disease, and been dead some days, and put that into the 
living animal ; they, of course, have not had much success. 
Others have taken an animal that was sick, but not very sick, 
killed him, and immediately cut him open and taken a part of 
the lung not very seriously affected, but still there was disease 
in it, and inoculated with that. Some animals were inoculated 
in the dewlap. They generally died. Others inoculated just 
at the end of the tail by cutting a hole just under the hair, just 
so as to draw blood, and depositing in it a little piece of the 
lung about as large as a common sized bird-shot ; and that was 
left for ten, twelve, and even fifteen days sometimes. They 
watched the animal closely, and when the end of the tail began 
to swell and feel hot, they cut it off, hoping thereby to cut 
off some' of the virus. I don't know whether that did any 
good or not ; but some have recovered. The animal appeared 
to be unwell ; in some cases the tail would be swollen and stiff 
up to the body ; but presently it would recover. In some other 
cases the swelling goes into the rectum, which becomes enlarged 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 53 

to an inch and a half, and large tumors were formed about 
the roots of the tail. When it becomes so bad as that, 
the animal will die ; but some men cut and slash them in a 
terrific manner, if you will allow me to use a strong word. But 
what is peculiar about these cuts is, that while you would think 
the animal would bleed to death, the wound bleeds but a few 
drops and then stops. There is no suppuration ; it looks like 
dried meat ; and so it will remain for days and days. The 
owners take very strong suds and wash it four or five times a 
day, so as to bring it into such a state that it will secrete matter; 
and if they can do that, the animal will recover ; if not, he will 
die. The cattle that have been preserved by inoculation are all 
the cattle we have left there. In a country like that, where there 
are no fences, and where there is such a constant going of cattle, 
many persons felt obliged to inoculate. Farmers in the interior, 
having, perhaps, some of them, three thousand dollars' worth of 
wool in their house, living four hundred miles from the seaboard 
where it was to be sold, did not dare to leave home unless their 
oxen were inoculated ; and when they inoculated them, they 
inoculated the whole herd. Every man felt obliged to inoculate 
his cattle, and did so, except some two or three strong-headed 
men, who did not believe inoculation would do any good. One 
such man is a neighbor of mine. He left it to fate ; and out of 
120 head, I believe he had but three or four left. 

Q. — Do you know whether the disease produced by inocula- 
tion would communicate disease to the cattle with which they 
come in contact ? 

A. — No, Sir. Where one was inoculated, we took it for 
granted that there we had the real disease, and all were 
inoculated. 

Q. — Did mortification ever proceed from inoculation? 

A. — Nothing that appeared so. The swelling goes up into 
the intestines, and the animal becomes bound, costive. But I 
did not see any animals treated scientifically that had been 
inoculated. I have no doubt that many would have been saved 
if they had been properly inoculated ; but I had most to do with 
those ignorant people who had no knowledge whatever. 

Q. — Is the disease that you had in your country the same as 
that about which we are inquiring ? 



54 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — Yes, Sir. I had an interview with Mr. Walker and 
some other gentlemen the other day, and they asked me to 
describe the disease as it existed in Africa. I told them it 
appears so and so, in the various stages. Mr. Walker sat 
opposite to me, and, slapping me on the leg, said, " That's it — 
that's it." They are identical ; there is no doubt about it. The 
appearance of the lung differs in various stages. It is a disease 
that goes on gradually. There is no enemy more stealthy, 
none that goes to work more secretly than that does. You 
may kill an animal in the very first stages, when it appears per- 
fectly well, and, no doubt, feels perfectly well, and you will 
find a spot in the lungs not bigger than half a dollar, but it is 
unlike the spots that appear in a healthy animal. If you cut it 
open, you will see that the air cells are becoming hepatized ; it 
is becoming solid ; and that little bit serves no purpose at all 
in the animal's body. If you had wailed a week, the spot would 
have been larger ; two weeks, and it would have been larger 
still. Some animals go off in a galloping consumption ; others 
retain the poison longer before it becomes manifest, and they 
hang qn to life with marvellous tenacity ; but they become 
thin, but they may live on and cough, cough, cough, for three 
months after they are taken sick. 

Q. — What are the first symptoms ? 

A.— The first are, the hair of the animal stands up, and we 
hear a little cough, as if it had got something in its throat that 
tickled it. Other cattle have such a cough and you will hardly 
be able to distinguish it, but you will observe that this is not 
momentary, but is kept up day and night ; and then this gets 
to be a cough that comes from the very bottom of the lungs — a 
very severe cough — which continues until the animal dies. 

Q. — What are the general appearances ? 

A. — You see it only in the staring of the hair, in a quickness 
of breathing, and a dryness of the nose and mouth. 

Q. — No discharge from the nostrils ? 

A. — Not at first. That does not come on until after the dis- 
ease has made considerable progress in the lung. 

Q. — You stated that many animals died from inoculation. 
Were the lungs ever examined ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. I have seen many ; the lungs were not 
affected in the least. There is a mystery about it that I cannot 
explain. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 55 

Mr. Wentworth. — Did you say that you have seen these 
cattle running at the nose ? 

A. — Yes, and froth at the mouth. There was considerable 
secretion flowing from the nose and mouth, and sometimes they 
coughed out lumps of this. As one man expressed it, " There 
is one, coughing out his lungs." 

Q. — Is there suppuration of the lungs ? 

A. — There is, in many instances ; and I should say that with 
us it was far more common than Dr. Loring stated it to be 
here. Sometimes, when you cut open the lung, you find a 
cyst ; but it holds pus, and it is not curded as Dr. Loring 
described. You cut down through a rotten lung, and wonder 
how the animal could live under such circumstances. 

Q. — Have you seen any animal in this country affected by 
the disease ? 

A. — I have not. 

Q. — Have you seen any lung said to be affected with the 
disease ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I have ; in a room adjoining that of the 
Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. 

Q. — Does the condition of that lung resemble those you have 
seen in Africa ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; it resembles, exactly, many that I have seen 
there. But, as I said, there was not, in the African cases, that 
cyst, containing a large lump of coagulated matter, which is 
seen here. More lungs have pus in them, in that country, 
instead of the curdy substance which is here found enclosed in 
the cyst. 

Q. — How does the animal behave, in Africa, — aside from 
coughing ? 

A. — At first, it will feed, some ; you will notice, however, 
that it is not so full as the other animals, when it comes home, 
at night ; but the feeding falls off, until the animal gets so that 
he stands in one spot almost all the time, and becomes more 
and more feverish. If the wind blows, it will seek some place 
to get out of it, and stand there for several days ; it will go off 
a little way, to get water, but will return to that spot. It will 
stand almost all the time. It seems to oppress the animal to 
lie down ; and it stands day and night, with its neck stretched 
out so as to give the air direct access to the lungs. 



56 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Does it associate with the other cattle ? 

A. — No ; it leaves them. 

Q. — How do you account for the lungs not being affected, in 
cases where the animal dies in consequence of the inoculation ? 

A. — There is no accounting for it. The whole thing is 
contrary to all common-sense and all science and all human 
experience. I can only say, that my oxen were inoculated, and 
lived through it, though thousands of cattle, within half a mile 
of them, died of the disease. I cannot account for it. 

Q. — Then the disease communicated by inoculation does not 
affect the lungs ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Do you know of any instances where it did? 

A. — No. I have known instances of this kind. Many 
persons, after their cattle had been exposed to the disease, and 
it had begun to take effect upon the lungs, have inoculated 
them, and they fyave afterwards died. It was hard to tell, in 
such cases, whether the animal died of the disease, or from 
the inoculation. Inoculation is simply a preventive ; it will 
not cure the disease, and if the animal has been exposed for 
any length of time, inoculation will do no good. 

Q. — Did you ever know an animal to have the disease that 
had been inoculated ? 

A. — I have, — a good many ; but the inoculation was done by 
men who have no intelligence. An intelligent, watchful man, 
will say to you, " I inoculated twenty ; fifteen took, and five 
did not ; I must re-inoculate those five" ; — and he does it, and 
saves his cattle. But with the heathen around me it was not 
so. They thought that if they had done the thing once, it was 
all right and sufficient ; and then they took the consequences. 

Q. — Did you ever see the lung of an animal that had died 
after having been inoculated ? 

A. — I have, many of them, I am sorry to say. They are 
not affected ; I know that personally. 

Q. — What seems to cause the death of those that die from 
inoculation ? 

A. — I should say that it was from inflammation, which 
causes a swelling, and that goes through the body, until it 
reaches the seat of vitality. Allow me to state, in reference to 
this matter, that some persons now buy up cattle which they 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 57 

know have been exposed to the disease, which they get at a 
reduced price, for the purpose of inoculation, expecting to lose 
some of them, but to make a profit on those that live through 
the inoculation, for then the animal will bring three or four 
times the original price. And I would say, in reference to the 
station where I live, that, finding there was not room for our 
agriculture in that healthy region which had been kept free 
from the disease by the vigilance of the natives, we went out 
into the contaminated region— moved our houses and every 
thing. But my people were not willing to take their oxen out. 
They went and bought other oxen, that had been exposed, 
however recently, and inoculated them, and the most of them 
recovered. They did a good business at that ; and then they 
would buy up the produce of the natives around, bring it up 
to the line with their oxen that had always remained in the 
healthy region, there they would unyoke them, and then bring 
these inoculated cattle up, yoke them, and go to market. So, 
with the help of two sets of oxen, they took their own produce 
to market, and also the produce of those around them. 

Q. — After an animal is inoculated, does he become very sick? 

A. — Some of them show very little sickness ; some of them 
are worked all through it, but others become very sick. 

Q. — What proportion become very sick ? 

A. — I have never paid such attention to the matter as would 
enable me to give you a reliable answer — a good many of them. 

Q. — What length of time is required to go through this pro- 
cess of inoculation ? 

A. — Well, an ox will be dead or safe within twenty days 
after he is inoculated. 

Q. — And then he recovers rapidly ? 

A. — He recovers rapidly. But I must say, gentlemen, that 
I do not know what would be the effect of inoculation in this 
climate on your cattle. I am speaking now only of my own 
neighborhood, and my own experience. I ought to add, having 
said so much about inoculation, that in Europe they think less 
favorably of it than we do in Africa. 

Q — Your cattle are out all the time ? 

A. — Yes ; we have no barns, no stalls, no any thing. 

Q. — What is the average temperature ? 



58 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — The highest I have known was ninety-three degrees, the 
lowest forty-two degrees. But you will notice that I am speak- 
ing of my own locality. The land rises back of me, and there 
are frosts there at night in the month of July, with a yqtj clear ? 
bright air. 

Q. — Do you know of any difference in the system of inocu- 
lation in the different climates ? 

A.— None whatever. There is, indeed, very little difference 
in the climate. There are frosts in the morning in some sec- 
tions, but the middle of the day is warm and pleasant, and men 
walk about with their coats off. "What I wanted to impress 
upon the minds of this Committee — for I feel an interest in 
this subject— was simply this : that we are satisfied that the 
disease is contagious ; that we have facts which prove that if it 
can be isolated it will die out, and go no further ; and if those 
persons who have cattle in the neighborhood of infected herds ? 
if they know they are infected, would remove them, and let 
them get well, the disease would die out, I am sure. But I 
have no plan to propose, for I am too ignorant of the country 
to be able to offer one. 

Mr. Bird.— What was the distance from you at which other 
cattle were kept? and what were the means of insulation? 

A. — Cattle came up from the other side to the line, and died ; 
and down the hill, a descent of half a mile, herds of cattle 
belonging to the natives were running, and have continued to 
run, for three years, with perfect safety. Whether quarter of 
a mile would have done it, I do not know, but half a mile has 
kept them safe. There was nothing to preserve the insulation 
but the watchfulness of the natives. All they have is in their 
cattle. The personal property of a native is not worth five 
shillings. They were very wide-awake, therefore, and if they 
saw a person coming down those hills, they ran out with spears 
and shields, and drove him back, and it came to be understood 
that no person was to pass through the country with cattle. 

Q. — What are your reasons for supposing that the diseases 
are the same? 

A. — One reason is, that they both came from Holland, or it 
is so stated. It was imported from Holland to Africa by a bull ; 
and I may say that every one, excepting, perhaps, two or three 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 59 

gentlemen, believe that the disease here was brought from 
Holland. I have inquired of the Commissioners, I have looked 
at the lungs, I have read all the accounts I could find, and the 
symptoms and the results are the same, with the exception that 
it is not so fatal here as it has been with us. 

Q. — I understood you to say that you had not seen the whole 
lung of any animal in this country, but only a piece ; is that 
the fact ? 

A.— I will tell you what I saw. I suppose it was a whole lung 
in a bucket. I did not take it out to examine the whole lung. 
I saw the diseased side of it, and where, if you cut into it, I 
have no doubt you would find the cyst of poisonous matter. 

Q. — How many did you examine in Africa ? 

A. — A few. I have seen pieces of the lung there. I am not 
a professional man, and the disease had been examined so much 
when it reached us, that we thought we knew all about it. I 
cannot say more than I have said of this disease, imported from 
Holland into South Africa. I wish to state here, however, that 
we have a disease that I suppose is the true pleuro-pneumonia 
there, and sometimes it gets into a locality, and will kill a 
number of cattle — eight, ten, fifteen, out of thirty head, — -just 
in one neighborhood, or in one place ; and when this other 
disease first came into the country, the natives laughed at the 
white people, and thought they were wiser than we. " Pooh!" 
they said, " we know all about that; we have seen this disease 
before." But when an animal died of it$ and the natives stood 
by to see it examined, they said, " Oh ! no, we don't know any 
thing about that." As soon as they saw that, they said, "That 
is not the trouble with our cattle." There we have a disease, 
the pleuro-pneumonia, and it sometimes acts very strangely, 
and kills a great many cattle ; but it does not go through the 
country, it is not contagious, nobody fears it. 

Q. — What do you call this disease there ? 

A. — We call it. by the Dutch name, which, literally translated, 
means a sickness of the lungs. 

Q.— Have you had sufficient experience to be able to say 
that where inoculation is fatal, there is no disease of the lungs ? 

A. — I have seen many cut open and cut up, but I have not 
seen any disease of the lungs. I have seen lungs cut up and 
given to dogs, and some people eat the meat of animals that 



60 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

have died from inoculation, and some the meat of animals that 
have died of the true disease ; and I have seen the thing so 
often, that I think there can have been no disease of the lungs, 
though I have not cut into them as a scientific investigator 
would have done. 

Q. — I understood you to say that you had taken some pains 
to inquire as to the disease as it exists here, and that you had 
seen it in Africa. Now, is there or not a very close resemblance 
in the symptoms and their results in the two countries ? 

A. — I am sure that the cases are the same. I have no more 
doubt of it than that I am standing here. I am sure that it is 
one and the same identical disease. 

Q. — I will ask you about the appearance of the lungs, as 
exhibited in Africa, and as seen here in the State House. Is 
there that strong similarity which would, in itself, lead you to 
the conclusion that the disease must be identical ? 

A. — I suppose that if a scientific man had the two lungs 
before him at one and the same time, without knowing that one 
came from Africa and the other from North Brookfield, he 
would not hesitate to say that it was the same disease in both 
lungs. An unlearned and unscientific man might not see an 
exact similarity, especially if one was a lung in which the dis- 
ease had been progressing eight weeks, and the other one in 
which the disease had existed only five weeks ; but I think that 
a scientific man would say that the latter was behind hand, but 
was coming up to the- other. 

Q. — How far is there any similarity in the symptoms between 
the cases of the natural disease and the inoculated disease ? 

A. — Well, they have hardly any thing in common. They 
have no cough ; they have a fever when they are inoculated ; but 
the constitutional disturbance is not violent, and not extensive. 
The animal goes on grazing, and may be worked every day. 
Many oxen get well, and are made proof against the disease, 
that work every day. 

Q. — When they have been inoculated, and go on from bad to 
worse, and finally die, what are the common symptoms ? 

A. — The disease goes up the tail, and goes into the animal, 
so that the intestines and rectum are much swollen. I have 
seen the rectum cut open when it seemed almost as large as. my 
two fingers, and so swollen that it became almost a solid piece 
of meat. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 61 

Q. — Dark and firm ? 

A. — Yes, hard and firm ; and then it is impossible for any 
thing to pass through the rectum. 

Q. — Did you see the actual pleuro-pneumonia in Africa 
before the bull landed there ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — How long before ? 

A. — It was at least a year, it may have been a year and a 
half; and at least three years before the sickness reached us. 

Q. — You saw that in your neighborhood ? 

A. — Yes ; one of my missionary brethren lost an ox by that 
disease, he was opened, and we examined him. 

Q. — Was there any difference between the real disease and 
the inoculated ? 

A. — A very striking difference. 

Q. — Can you not explain the difference readily ? 

A. — I do not believe I have science enough. The lung in 
the true pleuro-pneumonia was enlarged very much ; but the 
disease was violent, and nature did not progress so far as to set 
up, as in almost every case of this disease here, a kind of 
defence against it. There was no cyst ; there was no deposit of 
the cheesy matter that Dr. Loring spoke of. The animal was- 
sick, I think, not twenty-four hours after the disease appeared. 
There was considerale serum deposited in the cavity of the 
chest. It was one of those common cases which had been 
known in the country for considerable time. 

Evidence of Dr. O. Martin. 

Dr. 0. Martin, of Worcester. — I wrote to the Secretary of 
the Board of Agriculture when this Commission was appointed, 
that I wished he would give me an opportunity to examine the 
cases of cattle in Brookfield and New Braintree, — that having 
been my place of residence heretofore, — and Mr. Flint complied, 
and I went up there. I was there three days, testing the nature 
and character of the disease. I agreed, at that time, with the rest 
of the medical profession, in thinking that it was not contagious. 
I went there with the expectation of being able to prove that 
the disease was not contagious ; but in investigating the cases, 
I was convinced of the contagious character of the disease 



62 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

beyond a doubt. Every case I saw there, I was able to trace 
back to Mr. Chenery's herd. Then, in pushing my investiga- 
tions, to satisfy myself of the character of the contagion, the 
next step seemed to be to ascertain the time of the incubation 
of the disease, because, if the time was four weeks, and there 
was exposure six weeks after the time of incubation had 
expired, the probability was that the disease would not be 
propagated, and it was necessary to arrive at that point, if we 
could. I pushed my investigations to a certain extent, and 
satisfied myself as well as I could in regard to it. Then I 
endeavored to satisfy myself of the fact of how long the dis- 
eased animal could propagate the disease, but I arrived at no 
definite conclusion. I examined twenty cases, I believe. I 
reported to the agricultural society in the city of Worcester 
nine or ten sample cases. I have that paper in my pocket, 
which is more concise than I could state it verbally ; and if you 
wish, I will read you the report on those cases. It was intended 
to embody the results of my observations up to that time, and 
in fact, it contains the results of my observations as far as they 
have gone at all. 

Case 1st. — Autopsy. — This cow had been sick nineteen days, was 
feeble, without much appetite, with diarrhoea, cough, shortness of 
breathing, hair staring, &c. Percussion dull over all left chest, respira- 
tion null. Killed by authority. We found several gallons of serum in 
left chest, by estimate, a thick fuzzy deposit of lymph over all the pleura- 
costalis. This lymph was an inch in thickness, resembling the velvety 
part of tripe, and quite firm. There was a firm deposit of lymph in the 
whole left lung, but more especially at its base, with strong adhesions to 
the diaphragm and pleura-costalis, near the spine. The lung was hard 
and brittle, like liver, near its base. No pus. Right lung and chest 
healthy. There seems to be no very good reason why this case should 
not have recovered, as one lung was sound. This herd belonged to Mr. 
Olmstead. It was two weeks after first diseased animal to the second, 
making the time of incubation two weeks. Mr. Olmstead wrote me that 
the fatal cases lived from ten to twenty-eight days, making duration of 
disease till death nineteen days as an average. Those that commenced 
recovery had the disease from twenty-one to thirty-five days. 

Case 2nd. — This cow was taken very sick January 30. In fourteen 
days, she began to get better. Now, April 12th, she is gaining flesh, 
breathes well, hair healthy, gives ten quarts of milk a day, and in all 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 63 

other respects bids fair for a healthy animal hereafter, except a slight 
cough. Percussion dull over base of the left lung, near the spine, and 
respiration feeble in same region. 

Autopsy. — Left lung strongly adherent to diaphragm and costal- 
pleura — the long adhesions well smoothed off, pleura-costalis, shining 
and healthy. Also the surface of the lung where there were no ad- 
hesions, sound and right ; all the lung white and free for the entrance 
of air, except the base, in which was a cyst containing a pint or two of 
pus. Loose in this pus was a hard mass, as large as a two quart measure, 
marble looking ; when cut through its centre, like the brittle, hardened 
lung in the first case. It appeared as though a piece of lung was de- 
tached by suppuration, and inclosed in an air-tight cyst, by which 
decomposition was prevented. The other lung and chest were sound. 

It is to be inferred, as there were adhesions, that there had been 
pleurisy, deposit of lymph and serum like the first case, and that nature 
had commenced the cure by absorbing the serum from the chest, and the 
lymph from the free pleural surface, and smoothed off every thing to a 
good working condition. The lump in the cyst was brittle and irregular 
on its surface, as though it was being dissolved in the pus. And no 
good reason can be given why nature should not consummate the work 
that she so wisely had begun. 

Case 3d. — This cow had been sick fourteen days, was coughing and 
breathing badly, percussion dull over both chests, and respiration feeble. 
Killed. 

Autopsy. — Both chests filled with water, deposits of lymph over all the 
pleura-costalis an inch thick, presenting the same velvety, fuzzy ap- 
pearance as the first case. Both lungs were hardened at the base, and 
the left throughout its whole extent, and firmly adherent to diaphragm 
and costal-pleura near the spine. 

The right lung had nearly one-third of its substance in a condition 
for the entrance of air, but this portion, even, was so compressed with 
the water that a few hours longer would have terminated the case 
fatally, without State aid. This case had not gone on far enough for 
the formation of the cyst, or pus. 

Mr. jNeedham wrote me that about twenty-eight days intervened be- 
tween the first and second case of disease in his herd, making the time 
of incubation in this herd about twenty-eight days instead of fourteen, 
as in Mr. Olmstead's. 

The duration of disease in this herd seemed to be about two weeks 
till death or till commencement of recovery. 

Case 4th. — A nice heifer belonging to Mr. Wilcox, in fair condition, 
eating well, only having a slight cough. Percussion dull over base of 
left lung. 



64 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Autopsy. — Base of left lung adherent to diaphragm, and costal-pleura ; 
lung hardened. On cutting into base, found ulceration, and a head of 
Timothy grass four or five inches long. The animal every other way 
well. 

Case 5th. — This cow was taken January 1st with a cough, difficulty 
of breathing, and the other symptoms of the disease, and continued sick 
till March 1st. On taking her out April 12th, to be slaughtered, she 
capered, stuck up her tail, snuffed and snorted, showing all the signs of 
feeling well and vigorous. 

Autopsy. — Right lung firmly adherent to diaphragm and costal- 
pleura near the spine. Base of lung hardened, containing a cyst with a 
large lump of the size of a two-quart measure, floating in pus ; outside 
of the lump was of a dirty yellow white, irregular, brittle and cheesy ; 
the inside mottled, or divided into irregular squares, red like muscle, 
and breaking under the finger like liver. Costal pleura smooth, shiny, 
adhesions where there was motion, card-like and polished ; no serum ; 
lung apparently performing its function well, except for a short distance 
about the air-tight cyst, where it was still hardened. It would seem as 
though nature was intending to dissolve this lump and carry it off by 
absorption. The writer thinks she knows how, and would have done it, 
if she had been allowed sufficient time. 

Case 6th. — Was taken December 15th, and was very sick; in three 
weeks she was well, except a cough, quite severe, and so continued till 
about the first of March, when she coughed harder and grew worse till 
seven days before she was killed, April 12th, when she brought forth 
a calf, and then commenced improving again. 

Autopsy. — Right lung adherent to diaphragm and costal-pleura. At 
its base was a flabby, fluctuating cyst. In cutting into it, we found the 
lump breaking up by decomposition, and scenting badly. Every thing 
else normal. Did not some accident break through the cyst and let in 
the air when she grew worse ? Would she not probably have overcome 
this disagreeable accident, and recovered in spite of it ? 

This cow's hair did not look well, like those in which the cyst was 
air-tight, but still she was beginning to eat well again, and appeared like 
recovery. 

Case 7th. — This heifer had coughed slightly for six weeks, but the 
owner said he thought no one going into his herd would mind that any 
thing was ill with her. Autopsy. — Slight adhesions of lung to diaphragm. 
Near these adhesions are small cysts of the size of a walnut, containing 
pus and cheesy matter; about the cysts, a little way, the lung was 
hardened, say half an inch. There were several cysts, and they appeared 
as though the inflammation attacked only different lobes of the lung, leav- 
ing others healthy between — nature throwing out coagulable lymph 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. Q5 

around the diseased lobe, and forming thereby an air-tight cyst, cutting 
around, by suppuration, the diseased lobe, so it could be carried off by 
absorption. This herd belonged to C. P. Huntington. Nine days after 
first cow died, the second case occurred. First cow was sick five weeks. 
The time of incubation could not be over six weeks — probably not over 
three weeks. These cows — one improved in eight, the other in three 
weeks. 

Case 8th. — This cow has been sick three weeks. Killed. Autopsy. — 
Large quantities of serum in left chest ; lung adherent and hardened 
at base. On cutting into hardened lung, we found one side of lump sep- 
arated from the lung, with pus between the lines of separation, with the 
forming coat of the cyst outside of the pus ; the other side of lump was 
a part and parcel of the hardened lung which had not jet had time to 
commence separation. The pleura-costalis was covered with organized 
lymph to the thickness of an inch, with the usual characteristics. The 
right chest contained a small quantity of serum, and had several small, 
hardened red spots in that lung, with some tender, weak adhesions, but 
most of the right lung was healthy. 

Case 9th. — Sick four weeks. Killed. Autopsy. — Right lung hardened 
at base ; adherent to diaphragm and costal-pleura ; lump separated on 
one side only. Cyst beginning to form outside of separation; pus 
between cyst and lump, but in a very small quantity. These two cases 
settle the character of the lump, and the manner of the formation of the 
cyst. The lump being lung and lymph, cut out by suppuration ; the 
cyst being organized lymph, smoothed off by suppuration, friction, &c. 

Case 10th. — Killed. Hair looked badly, but the cow, it was said, 
eat and appeared well. But this case occurred in Leonard Stoddard's 
herd, where we could get no reliable information. Autopsy. — Base of 
lung hardened ; adherent to diaphragm ; containing a cyst in which was 
a lump of the size of a quart measure, but little pus. This lump had 
air tubes running through it, which were not yet cut off by suppuration, 
and in one place the cyst was perforated by a bronchial tube, letting in 
the external air to the lump which was undergoing disorganization — 
smelling badly, and when cut into, not presenting that red, mottled, 
organized appearance of those cases with air-tight cysts. This case was 
the specimen exhibited at last medical meeting. These two cows with 
perforated cysts, although improving, did not present the bright, active, 
healthy appearance, of those recovering with air-tight cysts. 

Quite a number more cases were examined, but these ten present all 
the different phases of those examined. One or two cases are needed of 
an early stage of the disease, to settle the point whether, in all cases, the 
primary disease is lung fever and the pleurisy — a continuation of the 
primary difficulty merely ; and some six or eight cases dating five, six, 



m PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

seven, eight months from attack, and so on till entire, final recovery. 
And such we expect to have an opportunity to examine in Mr. Chenery's 
herd. Some cases were sick most a year since, and are now apparently 
quite well ; perhaps all that lump and pus are not gone yet. I believe 
many physicians think no severe case will ever recover, and some think 
none ever get entirely well. But it would be difficult to see why, as a 
rule, all single cases should not recover, and all double cases die. 

The disease has been the most fatal in Mr. Chenery's herd — the herd 
the best fed and the warmest stalled — but he attributes the fatality, in 
part, to a want of sufficient ventilation. 

The herds in North Brookfield and West Braintree, where all the 
fatal cases have occurred in these towns, consisted originally of 

Leonard Stoddard's, 48 head, of which 13 have died. 
Alden Olmsiead's, 23 " " 7 " 

C. P. Huntington's, 22 " " "8 " 

A. A. Needham's, 22 « « 8 " 

Alden Woodis's, 21 " " 4 " 



Total, 136 " « 40 " 

Or were killed to prevent a certain death. A little less than thirty per 
cent, of these herds have died. 

From what the writer could learn, he was inclined to the opinion that 
almost every animal had the disease, but many of them so lightly as to 
be perceptible only on close observation. This estimate has excluded 
the calves. Most of the cows which had not calved before being sick 
lost their calves prematurely. Of the ability of nature to restore fully 
most of the cases in which she has made the attempt, the writer has no 
doubt. The probable time of incubation is from two to three weeks. 
The time of propagation about the same time. The acute stage of the 
disease lasting about three weeks. 



o 



I found that all reasoning from the human system to these 
cases failed. The disease does not follow any laws with which 
I am acquainted. 

I would say, in addition to this, that we labored under a diffi- 
culty, inasmuch as we had never seen the disease ; we had 
never had much acquaintance with healthy lungs. There is a 
part of the history of the cases that I have not described in 
that paper, because I was not certain in regard to it. When 
the animals were slaughtered, we found in the lungs something 
that we called red hepatization ; but when I returned home, I 
went to the butchers and found some lungs which presented 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 6? 

the same appearance, and the butchers told me, that when they 
cut the wind-pipe and the blood did not flow freely, one lung 
was left heavy, and did not collapse, and cut in the way which 
we called indicative of disease in North Brookfield. Neverthe- 
less, I have no doubt that there is an incipient stage of the 
disease which I have not seen, but which I presume the other 
gentlemen have. I made a mistake there, as. I did in a number 
of other things, which I took for granted before I knew. 

It seems to me that the important point to be settled, if in 
our power, — and as I am one of a committee of the medical 
society appointed to confer with this body, I will mention it 
now — is the time of incubation. The question of contagion is 
settled ; the time of incubation is not settled. I guess it is 
within four weeks. Then the time, too, of propagation. You 
will see the necessity of settling these questions, if possible. 
If we knew anywhere within a week or two, the time of incu- 
bation, if an animal has been exposed to the disease, and it has 
not come down with it within six weeks, and the time of incu- 
bation is only four, he may be considered safe, and it is not 
necessary to slaughter him. If the time of propagation should 
only be during the active stage of the disease, which is the 
peculiar . time of propagation of disease in the human species, 
then if this diseased animal, after six weeks, should go into a 
healthy herd, there would be no danger from that. That 
might help the matter along a little. 

Then comes the question of recovery. Now, I wanted, and 
I presume that the Commissioners wanted, that some animals 
should be placed in Mr. Chenery's herd. That would throw 
immense light upon the subject, but the Commissioners thought 
they had no power to do it. If we could place a healthy ani- 
mal in there, and it should remain so, it would show that the 
propagating period had passed, and that it would be ridiculous 
and absurd to kill them. I hope that Mr. Chenery's herd will 
not propagate the disease. I hope that herd .v not be killed 
at once, but only a part of them. It is a very serious question 
whether any of these cases will recover. My hope in nature is 
strong, and not so strong in medicine as some others. I should 
like to have an opportunity of examining those cattle. If they 
can be kept and killed from time to time, it will settle the ques- 
tion of final recovery. I am in hopes that the disease will grow 



68 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

less and less fatal, as such diseases are very likely to. I do not 
agree with the rest of the gentlemen, though they have had 
more opportunities of judging than I. I expect that some 
seventy per cent, will recover. My opinion may not be worth 
any thing to you. I think you have got to go by facts. There 
are opinions enough in the land for all of you. The facts I 
have stated you may depend upon. 

Q. — What mode would you recommend ? 

A. — Feed the animals well, use them well. If there is water 
in the chest, let it out. I should keep healthy cattle away from 
them. I might do something more than that to amuse my 
patients, but if one of my children had water on the chest, I 
should let it out, to make the child comfortable. 

Q. — Would you advise killing the cattle, if they were 
diseased ? 

A. — If the thing were left to me, to kill all the cattle that 
are diseased, I should do it forthwith. I think the only ques- 
tion is whether it can be exterminated ; if it can be, it ought 
to be. Any amount of money that it would cost, would be a 
small consideration. I want to mention some facts that have 
come to my knowledge in reference to its probable extent. I 
have been informed that Mr. Stoddard's calves were exhibited 
in West Brookfield, at the cattle-show, and that they stood by 
the side of some of the most distinguished bulls in the Com- 
monwealth. If that was so, it will make the question of 
extirpation a very difficult one. It would make the disease 
very much more extensive than I supposed it to be ; because, if 
that is the fact, there have been exposures in Worcester, and 
in different parts of the Commonwealth. Mr. Stoddard will 
be here, and can be examined. 

Q. — How long ago was that ? 

A. — That w r as last fall. In one herd, in which there is a 
bull that was there, there have been two deaths, but they were 
not by this disease — of course. There are a good many things 
that are " of course," when it is for a person's interest. That 
matter would be for the Committee to investigate. 

Q. — You alluded to one case, where the cow was improv- 
ing, and giving so many quarts of milk. Was the milk used 
in the house ? 

A. — No ; they said it was given to the calves. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 96 

Q. — Did the milk given to the calves communicate the dis- 
ease to them. 

A.— I don't know. I could not make much out of them. 
I did not estimate the calves, and the per cent, might vary, if 
they were brought into the estimate. My accounts, as far as 
they go, correspond with the accounts of the Commissioners, 
except that I did not take the calves in. I was there three 
days with the Commissioners ; I have not seen the cattle since. 

Q. — Where do you think the disease first originates, in the 
lung, or pleura ? 

A. — I do not know. I think it must originate in the lung, 
because I suppose it is communicated through the air, and 
will be likely to lodge in the place with which it first comes in 
contact. 

Q. — Did you find any thing in the autopsy to indicate where 
the disease originated ? 

A. — No ; only that I found inflammation of the lung and 
none of the pleura, and I have not heard of any case where 
there was inflammation of the pleura and none of the lung. 
I don't believe I know any thing more that will be of advan- 
tage to you. 

Q. — How long do you think the period of incubation is ? 

A. — From two to four weeks, as near as I can tell. 

Q. — How long the period of propagation ? 

A. — I said I could not tell. That is the thing I should like 
to know. 

Q. — What is your opinion about the power to propagate, 
where the disease has apparently suspended its work, and 
nature is going on with the process of forming the cyst ? 

A. — I have guessed, in my own mind, that after the cyst was 
formed, the time of propagation was passed ; but that is a matter 
of guess, which I should have put much more confidence in, if 
I could have had the control of Mr. Chenery's herd. It seems 
that the law is, that nature makes the attempt to surround the 
disease and cut it off, and then makes an attempt to absorb it 
and carry it off. In the longest cases, the lump is dissolved the 
most, and is the most brittle and easiest broken. It grows 
smaller, in proportion to the size of the cyst. There is evi- 
dently an effort to make it brittle, and absorb it. That is con- 
trary to the law in the human system. We do not expect 



70 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

absorption there ; but I think the absorption vessels are very 
much more powerful in animals than in man. As we go down 
in the scale, that power increases. I am very well satisfied 
that an Irish child will recover from an injury that a Yankee 
will not. I suppose my Irish friends will not take any offence 
at that, as I date from that race myself. 

Q. — I understood you to say that this lump becomes abso- 
lutely separated ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; it looks like a piece cut out. The inside of 
it looks alive. I presume it is preserved in the cyst, just as 
people preserve meats in preserving cans. 

Q. — What is your idea as to how the absorbents are to take 
up the lump? 

A. — By solution in the pus, and then the pus will be taken up 
by the absorbents, and carried off. 

Q. — I believe you said that in a certain case, you found a 
ramification of the trachea that penetrated into the lump and 
passed through it ? How does the disease appear to operate 
there ? 

A. — It begins by blocking up the bronchial tubes with coagu- 
ble lymph, so that they are air-tight, and cuts them off; but 
this was only where the sack was not perfectly air-tight. 

Mr. Andrew.— If I understand you, you are of the opinion 
that some commission ought to have entire control over a dis- 
eased herd like that of Mr. Chenery's, and use them at pleasure, 
for purposes of scientific research, and to have the power to 
introduce healthy animals into diseased herds, and to experiment 
by that means as well as others ? 

A. — Yes ; I think the interests of the Commonwealth require 
that. You know that one man is fitted for one thing and 
another for another. You want a commission to investigate 
the disease, whose peculiarities of character are such as will lead 
them to make a complete investigation ; to take nothing on 
trust ; but investigate it as far as it can be investigated. I do 
not believe that you will be able to exterminate the disease ; and 
therefore I think that while it may be well to make the attempt, 
it should be coupled with other means, so that, if it should not 
suqceed, the greatest amount of light may be thrown upon the 
disease, in order to protect the Commonwealth. It seems to me 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 71 

the greatest scourge that has ever happened to this country, of 
a material kind. 

Q — How many have died of the disease ? 

A. — Forty had died before the Commissioners were appointed ; 
then there were ten or fifteen that would have died, which were 
killed — say fifty-five full grown cattle. I excluded calves from 
my calculation. 

Q. — What do you think of the attempt to form any opinion 
of the disease in this country from facts, or statements supposed 
to be facts, describing the disease in other countries ? 

A. — I had only opportunity to look at the facts in connection 
with the disease in this country ; I should like to have had time 
to read up in regard to it in other countries, but I had not. 

Q. — I believe that every thing in nature produces its own 
likeness, even if the climate be different ? 

A. — Every thing that has the power of propagating its kind. 
We do not expect a horse carried to Africa to produce a mule. 
I am opinion that if you inoculate and produce pleuro-pneu- 
monia, another creature would take pleuro-pneumonia from the 
animal inoculated. 

Q. — But you must first prove the paternity ? 

A. — I think you must. 

Mr. Bird. — Dr. Thayer and Dr. Bates, speaking of this dis- 
ease, say : " The same animal will show all the different stages 
of the disease; red hepatization, dark spots, and an effusion of 
serum." I understood you to say that red hepatization was 
rather the result of knocking the animal on the head ? 

A. — When I saw the cases at West Brookfield, I said it was 
red hepatization ; but afterwards, on examining those Illinois 
cattle, I found the same appearance, which the butchers said 
was the result of the peculiar manner of killing them. There 
were dark spots in the lungs, the result of very free bleeding. 

Q. — Did you find these dark spots in the lungs of the 
Illinois cattle ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — The two first stages here described then, you found in 
the animals from Illinois ? 

A— Yes. 

Q. — But not the effusion of serum ? 

A.— No, Sir. 



72 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Evidence of Dr. George Bates. 

George Bates, M. D. I am happy to indorse the report of 
Dr. Martin, with the exception of his opinions, and particularly 
his opinion on the recovery of the animals. I will take, for 
instance, the first case in the report, in which the doctor said 
that red hepatization extended to the whole volume of the 
lungs. In that case, there was a large quantity of effused 
serum. I w-as of opinion that that animal could not have 
recovered from the disease, and I am of that opinion still. So 
in case eight. This was a case of extensive disease, which was 
passing into the state of gray hepatization. I cannot conceive 
that the absorbent system could have removed the diseased 
matter in this sack. I believe it could not have done it in 
nineteen out of twenty cases I have seen. 

Q. — Do you believe the process of absorption had com- 
menced ? 

A. — The process of separation had commenced. The lump 
was not entirely, but partially separated. I recollect one case 
where it was nearly separated, but not entirely. In regard to 
the question of contagion, my opinion is that it is a contagious 
disease purely. All the experience that I have had in the 
matter contributes to convince me that it is purely a contagious 
disease. I am ready to respond to any inquiries that may be 
made, which I would prefer to do, rather than make any defi- 
nite statement. 

Q. — While this process of the formation of the cyst was 
going on, the cattle appeared to be in a healthier condition, — 
appeared to be doing well, improving, gaining flesh ? 

A—They did, Sir. 

Q. — Have you any idea at what period the formation of the 
cyst commences ? 

A. — It is difficult for me or any one to know when the forma- 
tion of the cyst commences. I should infer that it commenced 
early in the disease, from the appearance of the cyst in different 
stages. The cyst is very small when the amount of disease is 
limited and circumscribed. 

Q. — We have it in testimony that cattle which had been very 
sick, but which the owners thought were well, and which 
appeared well, when killed and examined, were found to have 
these cysts ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 73 

A. — In quite a number of cases. The attending adhesions 
show that there had been inflammation. 

Q. — Do you think those animals would have died ? 

A. — I think they must have died. 

Q. — Was there any case in which there was simple inflam- 
mation, without any lump or cavity ? 

A. — Yes ; the first case reported by Dr. Martin. That lung 
was in a state of simple inflammation, passing on to that stage 
which we call red hepatization. No lump was found. 

Q. — How long had that animal been sick ? 

A. — I think, fourteen days. 

Q. — How long have you been with the Commissioners ? 

A. — I went with them on their first visit, and remained with 
them two days ; and I have been with them subsequently five 
days. 

Q. — If you found a case where the animal had been sick, 
refusing to eat, and the hair staring, and found that, in the 
progress of the disease, the hair became natural, and the appe- 
tite became good, should you not have had hopes that it would 
recover ? 

A.— If an examination of the chest showed an improvement, 
I might, but not otherwise. From physical appearances, you 
might think the animal would recover, but from auscultation, 
you would be convinced to the contrary. 

Q. — To what should you attribute the change in the outward, 
condition of the animal and the appetite ? 

A. — Merely to a change in the state of the disease. 

Q. — And you could not look for any good result from such, 
a change ? 

A. — Not unless it was a very healthy animal. Animals that 
are well cared for resist disease better than those that are poorly 
kept, or thin of flesh, or in a bad condition, or in an exposed 
situation. 

Q. — Would the fact that an animal had been well kept 
before it had the disease and afterwards, increase your con- 
fidence in its recovery ? 

A. — It would. I should think the animal had more vitality 
to withstand the disease. 
10 



74 PLEQRO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Something has been said about animals being feverish. 
Have you witnessed feverish symptoms — a quickening of the 
pulse, and heat ? 

A. — I did not examine the pulse in many instances ; I did in 
one or two, with Dr. Thayer. He called my attention to the 
acceleration of the pulse, and heat; and there evidently was 
that feverish heat which usually accompanies fevers in in- 
dividuals. 

Q. — Was that in an early stage of the disease ? 

A. — In about twelve or fourteen days. 

Q. — Supposing that you are right, and that the disease is an 
inflammatory one, how would it naturally be after the inflam- 
matory symptoms had passed off ? Would not the animal be 
more likely to have an appetite, and gain flesh and strength ? 

A. — It would. 

Q. — And now suppose that the disease goes on progressing, 
would not this very lump be a constant source of irritation 
there, and be likely to produce a return of the same symptoms ? 

A. — I think it would, and perhaps the source of symptoms 
worse than the first. 

Q. — Is it an uncommon thing in the human subject for 
inflammation to be attended with some fever and loss of appe- 
tite, and then for suppuration to take place, and until the 
amount of suppuration is so great as to produce disturbance in 
the system, for the patient to appear decidedly better ? 

A. — No, Sir, it is quite common. 

Q. — Did you make any attempt at curing those animals ? 

A. — No, Sir. 

Q. — Did any body, in your presence ? 

A. — No, not that I ever noticed. All the animals that I 
have seen have not appeared worth an attempt at cure. 

Q. — Do you not think that in some of the cases mentioned 
by Dr. Martin, the animals would have recovered ? 

A. — I think some of them would ; but I think a majority of 
them, as reported, would have died. 

Q. — You do not agree with him, then ? 

A. — I do not, in that particular. 

Q. — Did you assist in any of those examinations or autopsies ? 

A. — I did. At all of those which the doctor has reported, I 
was present. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 75 

Q. — In how many others ? 

A. — I am not able to state the number definitely. I should 
judge I had witnessed the deaths and examinations of some fifty 
creatures. 

Q. — Of the one hundred and eighty-live animals, reported by 
the Commissioners to be diseased, how many did you examine ? 

A. — I am not able to give you a definite reply, Sir. 

Evidence of Winthrop W. Chenery. 

Mr. Winthrop W. Chenery. — I can only state that I sent to 
Holland for these cattle — three cows and one heifer. ' They 
arrived here the 23d of May, 1859. Two of the cows were 
found to be in a bad condition. The first died at the end of a 
week, and was killed and buried; the second one died two days 
afterwards, and was also buried. The other two were appa- 
rently well at the time. About the 20th of June, the third cow 
was found to be sick. She was confined in a pen in my cow 
stable, with some twenty or thirty head of cattle in the same 
room, which is fifty feet square. She died the 29th of June, 
about nine days after she was taken sick. (I do not pretend 
to give exact dates.) The next cow found to be diseased was 
taken in August. This cow was imported from Holland in 
1852. She died about a fortnight from the time she was taken, 
in the same manner, and from that time, for two months, I had 
them dying constantly ; but I kept no record of them, and, 
therefore, I cannot give the dates. I lost, between that time 
and the first of November, nearly all that I have lost. 

Q. — Did you examine these creatures to ascertain what ailed 
them ? 

A. — Some of them were examined. Dr. Dadd examined the 
second one that died. I was away at the time, and did not 
witness the examination. Others were examined afterwards, 
by Drs. Wood, Saunders, and Thayer. 

Q. — Did they, at that time, pronounce this the disease that 
now prevails ? 

A. — No, Sir, I think not. I understood that there was a dif- 
ference of opinion about it. The three calves that have been 
spoken of as having been sent to North Brooklield, left the 
place on the 29th of June — the same day the first cow died of 
the disease. 



76 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Were they calved by these cows that you imported ? 

A. — No, Sir. They were sired by a Dutch bull imported in 
1857. 

Q. — What has been the condition of your herd since that 
time ? 

A. — My herd look well, very well, generally. There is no 
appearance of disease, except in three or four cases, — except, 
perhaps, an occasional cough. 

Q. — Have three or four of them been diseased ? 

A. — There are several of them that had slight symptoms of 
disease, but they are now apparently well. One in particular 
that was very sick — one of the first that was sick, I think, last 
September — has, for the last three or four months, grown re- 
markably, looks remarkably well, but has a very bad cough. 

Q. — Cow or heifer ? 

4.— Heifer. 

Q._How old ? 

A. — It is a yearling. 

Q. — Does it appear to be improving in its condition ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. The same is the case with a yoke of oxen 
that were slightly sick. They work daily as much as any cattle. 

Q. — Were you at home when these cattle arrived here ? 

A,— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Did you take the opinions of surgeons upon the sick 
cattle ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Who did you consult ? 

A. — Dr. Dadd, of this city. 

Q. — Did he give you an opinion as to the disease at that 
time? 

A. — He did not give the opinion that it was a contagious 
disease at that time. The opinion, at that time, was that the 
death of the two cows was caused by ill treatment on the 
passage. 

Q._Was that Dr. Dadd's opinion ? 

A. — It was his opinion, and my opinion, and is still my 
opinion. I don't think they had the disease at all ; they 
showed no symptoms of it. 

Q. — When the next cow died, was any surgeon called? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; the same surgeon. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 77 

Q. — What did he pronounce that ? 

A. — I think he called it pleuro-pneumonia. I did not charge 
my memory with it at the time, but my impression is, that 
that was what he called it. Nothing was said about its being 
contagious. 

Q. — Who has attended upon your herd since that time, if 
any one ? 

A. — Dr. Wood, of Boston, attended the mammoth cow that 
has been spoken of, and Dr. Saunders and Dr. Thayer also 
attended with him. 

Q. — Have your cattle been kept isolated from all others ? 

A. — Yes, they have strictly, for the last forty or fifty days, 
and were strictly during the time we thought the disease con- 
tagious, last fall. 

Q. — Have you thought it not contagious since last fall ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. We thought it was caused by a want of ven- 
tilation in the barn, up to the time of the North Brookfield 
excitement. Since that time, we have had no doubt that it was 
contagious. 

Q. — Whose theory was it that the disease was owing to bad 
ventilation, the surgeons' or your own ? 

A. — I think it was first suggested by Dr. Saunders. 

Q. — What did you think about it ? 

A. — I agreed with him that it was so, at one time ; I have 
altered my mind. I have no question now that it is conta- 
gious. 

Q. — How long after the importation was it before the calves 
went to Brookfield ? 

A. — One went in six days. The cow that went to South 
Maiden, I understand from my farmer, left the barn on the 
third day of July. 

Q. — Was she sick ? 

A. — She has been reported by the Commissioners as sick. 

Q. — Does your herd consist of imported stock entirely, or 
originating from imported stock? 

A. — Yes, all I have now. I had, at the time this sickness 
commenced, two natives on the place. 

Q. — How long was it after the cow went to South Maiden, 
before this disease manifested itself? 



78 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — Seven months, I think. I only know the common 
report as to the time of her sickness. That was the cow that 
stood next to the cow that was first sick. 

Q. — Has she been slaughtered ? 

A. — I think not. 

Q. — How many have you lost in all ? 

A. — Thirty, including the three that were slaughtered. 

Q. — Have you formed any opinion as to whether stock of 
imported origin are more liable to take this disease than native 
stock ? 

A. — I think not. The proportion of my Dutch stock that 
have lived is greater than that of the others. 

Q. — Have any other animals been sick there [South Maiden] ? 

A. — I think not. The cow has been kept alone. 

Q. — Have any been sick in your vicinity ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — How long were these animals on the voyage ? 

A. — I believe forty-seven days. 

Q. — When did you commence the isolation of your herd 
from other animals in your neighborhood ? 

A. — I commenced it about the first of September, or the 
last week in August. 

Q. — Previous to that time, were any precautions taken ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — What was the fact as to their intercourses with other 
animals in the vicinity ? 

A. — There was no intercourse, probably, before or after. 
My place is so isolated, that there is no opportunity for com- 
munication. 

Q. — How near do any other animals come to you ? 

A. — I should think one hundred rods. The pastures come 
together during summer, nothing but a common stone wall 
dividing my cattle from other cattle. 

Q. — Do you or not keep a bull that serves the cows in that 
vicinity ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — As a matter of fact, that was your practice ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Animals came to your place ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 79 

Q. — Was that bull diseased ? 

A. — No, Sir ; there never have been any signs of it ? 

Q. — He was with the herd ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; but at the time of service, the cow is not put 
in with the general herd. 

Q. — Was that bull born abroad or here ? 

A. — He was born in Holland, and brought here in 1857. 

Q. — Were those two cows sick before they arrived here ? 

A. — One of them had been mutilated on the voyage ; one 
had not been able to stand for twenty days before her arrival. 

Q. — That you did not attribute to the disease ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q.— Did they both die ? 

A. — I killed one to put her out of misery. 

Q. — That was the one you carried home on trucks ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Were those cows purchased by an agent of yours, or 
did you order them ? 

A. — An agent was employed specially to purchase them. 
They were purchased in the north of Holland. 

Q. — It was not known that there was any disease, at that 
time, in that portion of the country ? 

A. — No ; it was known that there was no disease there at 
that time. I have ascertained that since. There was a disease 
similar to that in the kingdom, but not in that vicinity. 

Q. — Was the disease at Rotterdam ? 

A. — The animals were kept in Rotterdam some days previous 
to shipment, and probably took the disease there. 

Q. — Was the disease there ? 

A. — I do not know that it was ; it is usually there. 

Q. — Where was the bull kept ? 

A. — It was kept in the centre of a lot of cows — a dozen ; all 
of which have died. 

Q. — How many cattle have you sold, to go away from your 
place, say since May of last year ? 

A. — The three calves that went to Brookfield and the cow 
that went to South Maiden, that is all. I ought to say, per- 
haps, that I gave away one other, a bull calf, before the cow 
was taken sick, that I date the disease from. It went to the 
McLean Asylum, in Somerville. That was on the thirteenth of 



80 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

June. He is still living, and I had him examined by a sur- 
geon, a few days ago, who pronounced him perfectly well. 

Q. — You considered the animals you sent to Brookfield and 
Somerville in perfect health ? 

A. — The bull calf went away before the cow was sick. The 
Brookfield calves went before we knew the nature of the dis- 
ease. The calf that went to the insane asylum was not in the 
barn with the sick cow at all ; the two that went to Brookfield 
were. 

Q. — Did I understand you to say that in the case of the 
third cow that died, the lungs were examined ? 

A. — I think they were not. 

Q. — Were the symptoms in her case like those that occurred 
in the cattle that died afterwards. 

A. — They were. 

Adjourned till Monday, at 9, A. M. 



THIRD DAY. 

Monday, June 4. 

Session resumed at 9-J-, A. M. 

The chairman stated that Dr. Thayer was one of the physi- 
cians who had attended the slaughter of the animals, in most 
cases, and would give such information as was in his possession, 
of the history of the disease. 

Evidence of Dr. E. F. Thayer. 

Dr. Thayer. — My attention was first called to this disease in 
November last, at the farm of Mr. Chenery, in Belmont. There 
were, at that time, two animals taken with the disease, in an 
acute form. I went there with two other gentlemen, surgeons, 
and examined the animals. They were treated, and in a few 
days partially recovered. I have since had an opportunity of 
making a post mortem examination of one of those two animals. 
I found, upon examination, there were no traces of acute dis- 
ease present. In one lung of one animal there was a portion 
of consolidated lung, evidently the result of a prior attack of 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 81 

the disease. She was killed on account, however, of a diseased 
eye, not because she was sick. She was ruminating, and 
appeared well, with the exception of a malignant tumor, which 
we supposed to be a cancer of the eye. 

In a day or two after his mammoth cow was attacked, and 
my attention was immediately called to. her, in consultation. 
She was treated. In a few days after, the Durham cow had a 
severe attack, the herdsman saying she was attacked as violently 
as any animal last summer, when the disease raged in its 
intensity. She was treated vigorously, and apparently recov- 
ered. The mammoth cow was treated for a space of five and a 
half weeks, and died. 

Question. — How treated ? 

Answer. — In the first instance, with laxatives and counter- 
irritation, and afterwards with tonics and stimulants. 

Q — What do you mean by counter-irritation ? 

A. — Blisters and setons. 

Q. — Setons in the side, or neck? 

A. — Both, Sir ; both sides and dewlap. 

Q. — When was she taken with the disease ? 

A. — The mammoth cow was taken, December 2d. 

Q. — That was the first case treated for pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — No, Sir ; we had treated the two other cases. 

Q. — But the one that had a diseased eye ? 

A. — She was treated for pleuro-pneumonia, and apparently 
recovered. She was killed on account of a diseased eye, as she 
was not wanted for breeding purposes. 

Q. — How long was this after the disease had apparently 
disappeared ? 

A. — This was the first that I knew of it. Twenty-four 
animals had then died. 

The Durham cow, as I have before stated, received active 
treatment, — counter-irritation, — and as she evidently had the 
chronic form of the disease, and as the herdsman also stated 
that she had had a previous attack, when some mustard was 
applied to her sides, she was put under the influence of the 
hydriodate of potassa. This was in December. She was taken 
a few days after the mammoth cow was attacked. Dr. Wood 
was the principal in the case, and had the active treatment of 
the animal. I was called there as counsel. I had an oppor- 
11 



82 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

tunity, afterward, to examine, in the presence of the Commis- 
sioners and some others, this Durham cow, which was killed in 
April. On opening the thorax, evidence of disease was mani- 
fest on both sides. Adhesions had taken place. There was 
some consolidation of the posterior portion of the lung, and a 
cyst, of some five to eight inches in length, containing a small 
portion of pus. 

The mammoth cow died in five and a half weeks from the 
date of the attack. Upon examination, the most extensive dis- 
ease of both lungs was manifest. The anterior portion, as we 
term it, to the sternum and ribs, was very extensively diseased. 
The weight of the lungs, we were unable to take, as the animal 
was presented, as a specimen, to Professor Agassiz, and the 
examination was not as satisfactory as I should have wished. 
Yet the greater part of the lungs were taken out, and were 
estimated to weigh sixty pounds. 

Q. — Do you say there was a cavity in each lung ? 

A. — There was a cavity in one lung, but adhesion in both. 

Q. — The Durham cow ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. The mammoth cow's lungs were a mass of 
disease, and, more particularly, the left, — effusion of lymph 
and serum. The serum had probably become absorbed ; 
but there was a great effusion of lymph, both into the lobules 
and into the interstitial tissues beneath the pleura, and con- 
solidation of the lungs. 

At the time this occurred, in December, I almost every dar 
examined one or more animals which had recovered or were 
supposed to have recovered. There was a Dutch heifer, so 
called, that, upon examination, showed very extensive disease 
in the chronic form. Some of this hydriodate was given her, — 
merely experimental, — and she died the day previous to the death 
of the mammoth cow. The most extensive disease was found 
in her lungs, but of a character showing longer-continued dis- 
ease. There were, in the cavities, pus — in fact, the lungs were 
both a general disorganized mass. She must have lived for 
some time upon a very small amount of healthy lung-tissue. 
In fact, she could eat but very little without incessantly 
coughing. 

Q. — Was that an imported heifer ? 

A. — She was by a former importation, I think. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 83 

Q. — Did these cysts, that contained no separate portion of 
the lung, but some pus, communicate with the main branches 
of the trachea ? 

A. — They did not communicate with the branches of the 
trachea or bronchial tubes, in the Durham cow, as was the 
case with the calf examined on Saturday. That was the first 
instance I had ever seen, where there was cutting off, as it 
were, of the bronchial tube, and connection with the sac. 

Q. — Then if there had been pus to a great amount in these 
latter sacs, and it had been removed, it must have been 
removed by absorption ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I think so, decidedly. 

Q. — When did you first become acquainted with Mr. Che- 
nery's herd ? 

A. — In November. 

Q. — In regard to those animals upon which you used the 
medicine, — how long after the disease appeared in them was it, 
before the remedy was applied ? I refer to all of them of which 
you have been speaking. 

A. — I think the next day after they were observed to be ill, 
in the first two cases — in fact, in all of them ; there was but 
one night intervening, I think, between the attack and the 
application of the remedies. 

Q. — Do you speak that from your own knowledge, Sir ? I 
thought you were merely consulting physician. 

A. — That was what was reported to me, " that they were 
taken yesterday," when I got there. The time of their attack 
is a question we almost always ask. 

Q. — Did you observe any febrile action in these creatures, 
at the commencement ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. They differed somewhat. The mammoth 
had decided febrile action ; should have stated that three or 
four or five days previous, parturition had taken place with her. 
She was not known to be ill at all, till Saturday prior to calving. 
She appeared a little amiss, which, as they supposed, was in con- 
sequence of that. And the second day after calving — these 
dates I have, but haven't them in my mind perfectly — the 
mammoth cow was observed to have those peculiar signs of 
disease, and our attention was called to her. She had decidedly 



84 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

febrile action. She had, what is rather unusual in cases that I 
have seen in Brookfield, a quick, hard, wiry pulse. 

Q. — Was blood-letting among the remedies proposed ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Did this calf from the mammoth cow die ? 

A. — No, Sir ; it is now living. I saw it on Saturday. 

Q. — Does it exhibit any appearance of having the disease 
now ? 

A. — Not the slightest, unless you may except a little enlarge- 
ment of the knees at the time of birth. That is, apparently, 
something of a scrofulous character ; we do not know what 
causes it, or whether or not it has any connection with that 
disease. 

Q. — Did you observe whether, when these cattle were 
attacked, they appeared to have rigors, chills, and such symp- 
toms as in the human species usually precede febrile action ? 

A. — I think that has not been observed here. But we have 
that report from England, that it is observed, if they are closely 
watched, that they have occasional rigor. 

Q. — Have you ever seen, in the course of your practice, any 
lungs exhibiting the same appearance, on post mortem exami- 
nation, as these ? 

A. — No, Sir; not the slightest. There is a peculiarity in 
the appearance of these lungs, that I have never found prior to 
the occurrence of this disease. 

Q. — You are satisfied that there have been no cases of 
pleuro-pneumonia among cattle in this country before ? 

A. — Not of this " contagious pleuro-pneumonia," as we term 
it. We have often true pleuro-pneumonia in cattle. This is 
not true pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — How early did you discover the contagious disease ? 

A. — I followed it up to Brookfield, and traced the disease 
from the herd at Belmont, in one form or another, which 
brought me to a satisfactory conclusion that it was contagious. 

Q. — What time of year was that ? 

A. — I went to Brookfield in March. 

Q. — But did you make up your mind in March, that it was 
contagious ? 

A. — I did upon my first inquiry as to how a particular 
animal got it. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 85 

Q.— Was that in March ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. All that I knew before, was from evidence 
that I had read in my veterinary works. 

Q. — But you did not recognize the genuine contagious pneu- 
monia till the month of March ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I did at Mr. Chenery's, but I did not know 
personally where it had proved contagious here, until this 
time, excepting from the report of Mr. Chenery. 

Q. — Then you did not recognize it as the disease that has 
prevailed in Europe and in other places ? 

A. — I did at first. 

Q. — Did you pronounce it so to Mr. Chenery ? 

A.— I did, Sir. 

Q. — At what time ? 

A. — November. 

Q. — Did you caution them at that time against exposing 
other animals ? 

A. — Well, Sir, we were divided in opinion in regard to it, 
and Mr. Chenery was present most of the time, and heard the 
conversation. I objected to it. I recollect that another told 
him he would as lief put his own cow into Mr. Chenery's barn 
as not. Mr. Chenery knew my opinion ; but he knew that of 
another who differed from me, and what his mind was I do not 
know. 

Q. — Who was the other ? 

A. — Dr. Saunders, of Salem. 

Q. — He did not think it contagious ? 

A. — He did not think it the disease. He attributed the 
disease entirely to the want of ventilation of the building. 

Q.— Do you know whether Dr. Saunders has changed his 
mind, in relation to the disease, now ? 

A. — I do not know. I have not conversed with him, recently ; 
I have not met him. 

Dr. C ho ate. — I saw him, two or three weeks since, and he 
then seemed to be aware of its contagious nature. 

Q. — [To Witness.] Have you been in the habit of treating 
cases of common pleuro-pneumonia, — that is, simple inflamma- 
tion, — in cattle ? 



86 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — We have, once in a while, a case ; they are rather rare. 
I have been called to several such cases. 

Q. — What is the usual result in such cases ? 

A — If called in season, there is no trouble in treating them. 

Q. — What is the proper treatment in the early stage ? 

A. — According to its indications. If decidedly of a febrile 
character, — hard pulse, quick breathing, crepitating sound in 
the lung, and so forth, — if called in season, it should be treated 
with bleeding, and such medicines as are indicated at the time. 
If that stage is passed, we cannot bleed them. As I said before, 
the cases are rare, compared to those in horses. It is a disease 
peculiar to this climate, in horses, every spring. 

Q. — Have you been accustomed to see animals slaughtered 
for beef, and examined them ? 

A. — I have ; and since this occurred, I have taken several 
opportunities to visit slaughter-houses, for that purpose. 

Q. — Is it common to find the lungs diseased of cattle killed 
for beef, that are apparently well ? 

A. — I have not been able to find, in market, diseased lungs 
in cattle, this year. I have, some years previous, seen them, 
but then not, perhaps, thinking so much of it. I merely 
thought it the effect of some diseased lung. But we occasion- 
ally find, perhaps, a slight adhesion of one lobe to another, — 
or one little spot, or something of that kind, — which may have 
been caused by close contact in cars, and want of ventilation, 
or the result of some slight attack having occurred heretofore. 
I have not seen many diseased lungs in slaughter-houses. 

Q. — Diseased lungs of horses are frequent, — are they not ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; but the horse is a kind of animal that is 
driven rapidly, and is more liable to diseased lungs than cattle. 

Q. — What do you understand by " contagious disease ? " 
You have pronounced this contagious pleuro-pneumonia ; and 
the common pleuro-pneumonia is not contagious. What is the 
difference ? I do not mean the difference in symptoms. 

A. — I have always called this infectious. 

Q. — We will not go into nice distinctions ; but what do you 
mean when you say that this is a contagious, or infectious 
disease ? 

A. — I recognize contagion to be the communication of the 
disease by touch. If an animal touches another, it might be 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 87 

called contagion. Infectious, — he should receive it either from 
the air, or from the breath of the animal. 

Q.— But, in a medical point of view, what makes a disease 
contagious, or infectious ? What do you mean when you pro- 
nounce this contagious or infectious, and other forms not con- 
tagious or infectious ? 

A. — I do not know that I exactly understand you ; but my 
idea is this, — that it is well known that ordinary pleuro-pneu- 
monia will not convey disease to another animal standing by the 
side of the sick one. But in this case, it is, to my mind, per- 
fectly satisfactorily proved that if an animal stands near enough 
to breathe the air from the other, if at all susceptible to the 
disease, it takes it. 

Q. — What constitutes susceptibility ? Do you say this dis- 
ease is contagious or infectious under all circumstances, 
irrespective of the physiological habits or conditions of the 
subject within a certain distance ? 

A. — My opinion is, so far as I have have been able to judge, 
that there are a very few animals not susceptible to it, under 
any circumstances. They seem to be so, at least. An animal 
was killed, which was pronounced, by the surgeon, sound. It 
ruminated, and had no appearance, not the slightest, of disease, 
or even of ever having had the disease. There was neither upon 
auscultation, or percussion, any appearance of the disease, and 
the creature was bright and healthy. The medical men called 
for an animal pronounced sound, and this one was selected. 
She was examined, and not the slightest trace of disease was 
found upon her lungs, in any particular. 

Q. — Where was that animal taken from ? 

A. — 1 think, from Mr. Olmstead's. 

Q. — How long had she. been exposed ? 

A. — She was said to have been in his herd all the winter ; 
and he had about as sick a herd as any man. 

Q. — Did any one suspect she had the disease, before she was 
killed ? 

A. — No, Sir, I think not. 

Q. — Do you call this disease contagious, or infectious ? 

A. — 1 think it infectious, as I use the word. 

Q. — Within what distance do you call it infectious ? 



88 PLEURO-PNEUMONJA. 

A. — I think, if in a very tight barn, it would give it through 
the barn, if the barn was battened. 

Q. — But you have said you consider it infectious, irrespec- 
tive of the physiological conditions of the animal. 

A. — I do not consider that a physiological condition. If put 
in a close room, and obliged to inhale the air at ten feet off, 
the animal would take the disease ; but if there was a good 
current of air passing between the two, she would not take it. 

Q. — Then, how far is this infectious virus controlled by these 
other things ? 

A. — I think, considerably. 

Q. — How much ? 

A. — I think an animal which stands within two or three feet 
of it, would be sure to get it ; and I think, with a free, open 
ventilation of the building, at a distance of ten or fifteen feet, 
it might escape. 

Q. — Is not what you say in regard to this, true in respect of 
contagious and infectious diseases, as to their effect upon indi- 
viduals coming within range ? 

A. — It depends, of course, upon the physiological condition 
of the animal. I believe the itch connot be contracted without 
touch, but I do not know of any other instance. 

Q. — What is the law of contagion or infection? Is it so 
that medical men will risk their reputation upon a positive 
statement such as this : " Here is an animal with a disease 
which we call infectious ; we will risk our reputation upon the 
assertion that, under all possible conditions of certain animals, 
it will communicate the disease, at a certain distance ? " 

A. — I should think there might be exceptions. 

Q. — The number of exceptions would settle the question 
whether the disease was most affected by the virus, or other 
considerations ? 

A. — I consider the infectiousness of this disease settled by 
the amount of the poisoned air inhaled. 

Q. — Then that depends upon the amount of the admixture 
of the pure air ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — What we want to get at is this: in considering this 
question of the contagiousness or infectiousness of the disease, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 89 

does the liability to disease depend upon the condition of the 
subject, or the morbific potency of the virus ? 

A. — I don't know that I can give a satisfactory opinion upon 
that ; for I believe that both have some share in determining 
the matter. The more an animal is predisposed to the disease, 
the more likely it would be to take it. 

Q. — Is it not a doubtful question ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; it is. 

Q. — But you believe that every animal with this disease 
makes a. certain amount of poisoned atmosphere about it? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — If the animal should be put in a close barn with a dozen 
cows or oxen, the poison in the atmosphere would be more 
intense ? 

A. — Decidedly so. 

Q. — If the wind blew freely through the barn, it would 
carry off a large portion of it ? 

A. — A large portion of it. 

Q. — Do you consider smallpox contagious ? 

A. — I suppose it is. 

Q. — If a certain number of persons are exposed to the small- 
pox, is it not a matter of notoriety that a certain portion will 
take it, and certain others will not ? 

A. — Undoubtedly, a few will not take it. 

Q. — Do we know the physiological or other condition which 
prevents their taking it ? 

A. — I do not, Sir. 

Q. — Do you know that any body pretends to know ? 

A. — I do not, Sir. 

Q. — Do you or do you not mean to say that the evidence of 
contagion in this disease is similar to what we know of con- 
tagion in smallpox ? 

A. — I should think it very similar. 

Q. — What was the condition of Mr. Chenery's building as 
to ventilation ? 

A. — He had what we call a " ventilator, " going up through, 
of considerable size. 

Q. — How many cattle were kept in this room ? 

A. — Forty-two. The room was fifty feet square, its height 
about eight feet. 
12 



90 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Which should you think the more contagious, — if we 
may use the comparison, — smallpox, or this disease ? 

A. — Well, Sir, I could not answer that with any satisfaction 
to the public or myself, for many are protected by vaccination. 

Q. — Independent of vaccination ? 

A. — My experience has been small. I should hardly think 
there was much difference, if they were confined in a close 
place, under similar circumstances. I don't know, however ; I 
really could not answer that question satisfactorily to myself. 
I have not reflected upon it. In fact, I know but little about 
smallpox. 

Q. — What, in your opinion, is the best mode of extirpation, — 
by general slaughter or isolation, — or any other mode ? 

A. — In answer to that question, I would observe, that under 
the present aspect of the case, my opinion would be, perhaps, 
now, that it would be best to form a territory for it, thoroughly 
and efficiently protected, to isolate the cattle, and then to have 
those cattle closely watched, and as soon as a sick one is found, 
have her taken out and slaughtered, and follow that up for a 
great length of time. Otherwise, I cannot see any efficient 
way of extirpating the disease, but by slaughter. 

Q. — How long, in your judgment, — if you have formed any 
opinion upon it, — should exposed or diseased animals be iso- 
lated, before they are permitted to go at large ? 

A. — I should never let them go at large, but should have 
them fattened and killed. I should never allow them to go 
with healthy animals. I should never permit them to mix 
with healthy cattle. 

Q. — How far would you keep them from other animals ? 

A. — I should never permit them to associate freely. 

Q. — You would not permit them to be in the same herd ? 

A. — They might be in the same herd, but I would not permit 
them to come together. 

Q. — What constitutes the exposure on account of which 
you think it necessary to insulate the cattle ? Within what 
distance shall my cow have been of a diseased animal, in order 
to make it necessary that I should shut her up ? 

A. — I should say, being in the same herd — in the same yard, — 
so that they could get their noses together, and the healthy cow 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 91 

get the breath of the diseased one, would be sufficient to 
constitute exposure. 

Q. — Have you examined the cow that went to South Maiden ? 

A. — I have ; but not under the most favorable circumstances. 
She was in the road, feeding, and was caught and held. I 
examined her by auscultation, which indicated tuberculation 
of one or both lungs. Her natural signs, the general appear- 
ance of the animal and looks of the eye, the skin and hair, 
showed that she had disease, and the medical signs certainly 
did. 

Q. — How long was it after that animal went from Chenery's, 
before the symptoms of disease developed themselves there ? 

A. — The committee of the agricultural society called upon 
the gentleman who bought her, — Mr. Marsden. He stated that 
he brought her home on the 80th day of July, and that she 
was in perfect health until February, when she was sick. She 
breathed short, discharged from the eyes and nose, I think, 
was very sick, and did not take any food, or ruminate, for 
about ten days or a fortnight. That was his statement. 

Q. — Is it considered possible that that animal could have 
been exposed to the disease at any time after she was taken 
from Mr. Chenery's ? 

A. — Not if what they said is correct. I should think not. 

Q. — The Maiden cow is still living ? 

A. — So far as I know. 

Q. — What is her condition ? 

A. — She was poor, her skin pretty tight to her ribs, her eye 
looking dull, and she had a dejected appearance, though she 
was giving six quarts of milk per day. 

Q. — When was that examination made ? 

A. — About a fortnight since. I cannot give dates. I make 
the examinations, and my hands are bloody, so that I cannot 
keep a record. I have to make these statements from memory. 
The Committee, or Commissioners, have a record of all these 
things, which can be called for. 

Q. — I understand you to say that a creature which had 
been once exposed, could never be safely permitted to mix 
with other cattle ? 

A. — That is my opinion. 

Q. — Upon what account ? 



92 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — From observation in two or three cases I could name, 
or at least in two, from the reports which I have in my veteri- 
inary journals, where it is stated that the disease breaks out in 
the sporadic form, I am convinced now that the animal is 
liable to another attack of the disease, whenever any exciting 
cause occurs to develop it. 

Q. — How can you tell whether the creature did take the 
disease by exposure ? You say an animal once exposed must 
never be permitted to mix with other cattle ? 

A. — I think not, because the disease is so insidious and 
stealthy in its character, that an animal may have considerable 
disease going on, without its being known to an ordinary 
observer. 

Q.— All its life ? 

A. — 1 think it perhaps so. 

Q. — Is tlrat true of any other contagious disease ? 

A. — Not of any that I know of. 

Q. — Then you think that contagious period may continue 
through all the life. 

A. — It may continue a very long time, so long that I do not 
know when to fix a period that would be safe. Therefore, I 
advise that the animal should be fattened and killed for 
beef. 

Q. — What do you think of vaccination ? 

A. — I know nothing of it particularly, and have to take my 
opinion from a report of the commission sent to Belgium, and 
from just reading those reports I came to the conclusion that it 
was perfectly valueless. 

Q. — Did you hear Mr. Lindley on Friday ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I did not. 

Q. — In point of economy, which, in your opinion, is the 
more expensive — killing the cattle and paying for them, or 
attempting to isolate and cure them ? 

A. — Animals sick, I think it would be cheapest, as far as 
dollars and cents are concerned, to kill and bury them. 

Q.— If they were exposed, what would you do ? 

A. — Isolate and watch them — and have it done efficiently, or 
it is of no value. 

Q. — Would you proceed to fat them immediately ? 

A. — I would, Sir. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 93 

Q. — Do you know any thing about the rumor circulated, on 
Saturday, about Mr. Chenery's, as to that red ox which ap- 
peared, now, to be healthy, but had the disease in December, 
recently communicating the disease, when it went off after 
hay ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — State the facts, if you know them. 

A. — That ox, when I went there, in November, — both oxen, 
indeed, but one particularly, — was evidently suffering from the 
effect of the disease. This spring, they have evidently been 
gaining in flesh and condition ; in fact, they have altered in 
appearance very markedly. On the 11th of April, I think it 
was, they went to Mr. Wellington's barn to get hay. They 
backed into the barn. There were, in the barn, five animals, — 
three cows and two heifers. The noses of those oxen came 
very near these animals. Sometime in May, Mr.. Wellington 
notified the Committee, and I was sent there to examine the 
animals. One animal had a calf, but yet, showed considerable 
excitement in the system. We could not form any definite 
opinion as to whether they were diseased, or not. They were 
put under an injunction. On last Saturday, I visited them 
myself. The day before, a calf of one of the cows showed very 
quick breathing, and alarmed the man who was keeping her. 
We found the calf breathing with some difficulty ; but yet, 
being in a cellar where it is rather damp, we did not know but 
this might have been caused by the animal's taking cold. 

Q. — How old was the calf? 

A. — Five weeks. The cow showed some bronchial or tubular 
respiration, — not very marked. She was in pretty good con- 
dition. 

Q. — Was the cow in the cellar ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. The day we examined her before, she showed 
some quickening of respiration, but as she haol had a calf, and 
seemed to be anxious about it, we thought it might be attribu- 
table to that. 

Q. — Can you say that the disease was communicated to her 
by the oxen ? 

A. — I cannot. I did not know that the oxen had the disease 
then. 



94 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Do you know that they had it now ? 

A. — No, Sir. The report says, that when the calf was killed, 
it was found to be diseased. 

Q. — This whole story about their going for the hay is merely 
hearsay, is it not ? 

A. — I know nothing more than that my attention was called 
to the animals. 

Q — Why can't you answer the question ? Is it hearsay or 
fact ? 

A. — A good deal of what I say I have to take from reports. 
I went there and examined the animals at the request of the 
Commissioners. 

Q. — Was the story of their going after a load of hay a matter 
of hearsay, or do you know it as a fact ? 

A. — It was a matter of hearsay. 

Q. — Who first told you the story ? 

A. — Mr. Wellington first told me. I will state, as corrobo- 
ratory, that he had already been to Governor Banks, and the 
governor had informed him that he should send one of us out 
to see him. 

Q. — What was the condition of the cellar in which this calf 
was kept ? Would it have been likely to take cold there ? 

A. — I should say so. It is a cold cellar — two-thirds of it 
under ground. 

Q. — What is the size of the cellar ? 

A. — Sixty feet by forty, and some seven or eight feet high. 

Q. — Do you know who performed the autopsy on the calf 
killed Saturday ? 

A. — I do not, but I understand that Dr. Loring was present. 

Q. — This was the cellar used for the manure of the barn ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Was it all open ? 

A. — Yes. She was shut up in a pen. Mr. Wellington told 
me that the animal had not appeared well, and he was a little 
frightened^ and put her down there to have her out of the way. 

Q. — Do you know how many months the oxen had the disease 
before they were sent to the barn ? 

A. — I know they were sick prior to my first visit, in November. 

Q. — How many months would have elapsed between that 
time and the time they went to the barn ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 95 

A. — Six months, certainly. 

Q. — Were these oxen regarded as cured at the time they 
went after the hay ? 

A. — 1 do not know. They were at work, and had been 
worked for some months. In March, I visited Brookfield, in 
company with Dr. Wood, and was taken first to a barn which 
was then occupied, a portion of it, by Mr. Curtis Stoddard, 
who bought the calves at Belmont. There we found an animal 
sick. We then proceeded to Mr. Alden Woodis's yard, and 
there we found an ox very sick, and we were both of the opinion 
that he could not recover. Several other animals were evidently 
affected by the disease, in various stages. Upon inquiry we 
were informed — not by Mr. Woodis himself that day, but he 
afterwards corroborated it — that Mr. Stoddard asked the privi- 
lege of putting his oxen into Mr. Woodis's barn, to be kept 
over night, while he was " logging," as it is called, in that 
neighborhood, to save the transit over the road, and while 
there these oxen sickened, and one of them had to be helped 
up in the morning once or twice. A few weeks after, his ani- 
mals began to be sick, and one was sick at that time, and very 
sick. This was in New Braintree. We then went to Mr. Olm- 
stead's, in Brookfield. We found there a very sick cow — so 
sick that we thought she could not recover ; and upon examin- 
ing all the animals, we found many very sick, and for our 
especial gratification a calf was taken out and killed, and we 
found both the chronic and acute forms of disease exhibited in 
a very marked degree. The calf, we were told, was four weeks 
old. Three weeks afterwards, I saw the cow that we thought 
could not live, and she was better — was ruminating, and there 
was a better appearance of the eyes and hair. A few days 
after she was taken out and killed, and her left lung was found 
to be entirely solidified, and weighed sixteen pounds. 

Q. — What would it weigh in a healthy condition of the 
lungs ? 

A. — Some weigh two and three-quarters pounds, and some 
come up to three pounds. This was a single lung, separated 
from the trachea or windpipe. 

Q. — What was the state of the other lung in this case ? 

A. — It was nearly healthy, and weighed four and a half 
pounds. The anterior portion of it was consolidated. 



#6 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — What you call red hepatization ? 

A. — No, Sir ; rather a confused lymph. I went out at that 
time on purpose to examine the situation of the farms, and 
satisfy myself perfectly with regard to the contagious, or infec- 
tious, (as I call it) nature of the disease. I found the barns 
well built, with perfect drainage, and most of them pretty well 
ventilated, some of them very well, by the natural openings in 
the boards ; but Mr. Olmstead's was decidedly close for a 
country barn ; and the disease raged in his herd as extensively 
as in any herd that I have witnessed. Mr. Olmstead purchased 
a pair of oxen of Mr. Leonard Stoddard, and kept them in his 
barn but five days, when he sold them to a neighbor, after which 
his animals commenced being attacked by the disease with 
great violence and considerable fatality. 

Q. — Have you any personal knowledge of the manner in 
whicli Mr. Chenery's cattle were kept through last summer — 
whether they run in the fields adjoining which his neighbor's 
cattle ran all the summer through ? 

A. — No, Sir, I have no personal knowledge of it. 

Mr. Chenery, being in the Hall, at the request of some mem- 
bers of the Committee, stated the facts in regard to this matter. 
He said, " They did run, with cattle in the adjoining pastures, 
for several weeks." 

Q. — Was the disease communicated to any of the cattle 
running in the fields adjoining yours ? 

A. — It has not been, so far as I know. 

Q. — Were the pastures fenced in such a way as to prevent 
the cattle from getting their noses and heads together ? 

A. — They were not. We had no cattle running in the 
pastures that we supposed to be diseased at that time. 

Q. — They were cattle that had been exposed ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Dr. Thayer resumed. The particular manner in which Mr. 
Needham had the disease communicated to his herd, I do not 
distinctly recollect, although I heard it stated ; but those were 
the places where the disease raged with the greatest violence. 
I spent the day in examinations of that character, and in 
examining that calf, and I could come to no other conclusion 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 97 

than that it was the disease called pleuro-pneumonia, and that 
it was highly contagious, or infectious, as I term it. 

Q. — I understand you to say that you would be in favor of 
destroying diseased cattle and of isolating those that have been 
exposed ; but I understand you to say that you would not be 
willing to have such cattle mix with those not diseased. What 
benefit, then, would the isolation be ? 

A. — To stop the extension of the disease, and fat them, so 
that they might be killed for beef, after they had been exposed . 
The reason is that the disease is so stealthy in its character that 
I should never dare to risk allowing cattle that had been exposed 
to mix with others. I will state, in illustration, that I was 
instructed to examine an animal in Brookfield, near Sturbridge, 
that left the herd of Mr. Stoddard on the 23d of October. She 
was sold at auction, and was finally purchased, in November, 
by Mr. Nichols, who bought her to supply him with milk during 
the winter, thinking he should get four or five quarts a day, 
but he only got three pints. So he tried to feed her so that 
she would give more milk, and then to fat her ; but she would 
not fatten to any extent. I killed her in May, and, on exami- 
nation, she showed no extensive hepatization, but the most 
spots I ever found, — some twenty or thirty, and there was some 
hypertrophy of the lung ; it weighed nine and three-quarters 
pounds. The animal had the disease in an acute form, and 
had been exposed in no other way, so far as I could learn ; and 
yet there was great difficulty in fattening her. That was seven 
months after she left the herd, and never had shown any acute 
signs of the disease, or communicated it to others in the herd, 
probably ; but she had been in this ailing condition herself, 
without the ability to fatten. 

Q. — Should those animals be fattened and killed, would you 
suppose that the meat would communicate the disease ? 

A. — I think not. 

Q. — Were you present at the slaughter of Mr. Olmstead's 
stags ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Do you think it possible to fatten animals that are 
diseased ? 

A. — Perhaps they may recover sufficient to be fattened, in a 
sufficient length of time. From the appearance of this cow, I 

13 



98 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

should think it would, in many cases, cost more than it would 
come to. However, I should attempt it. 

Q. — What is now the condition of Mr. Chenery's cattle that 
had the disease ? 

A. — They are in tolerably good condition. 

Q. — Do you think there would be any difficulty in fattening 
them ? 

A. — I should think from the experience and observation I 
have had, that it would be difficult to fatten them for first class 
beef; they might be fattened and sold for middling beef. 

Q. — Where have you seen the attempt made to fatten cattle 
in such a condition as Mr. Chenery's ? 

A. — This animal in Brookfield or Sturbridge — it was near 
the boundary line, and I don't know which town it was in. 
That was the only instance. Mr. Chenery is a good feeder, 
and his cattle have the best of care ; but yet the animals that 
are known to have been diseased have certainly not thrived. 
That is all my experience. They have not appeared like good, 
healthy animals since the disease. 

Q. — Are not his working cattle in good condition ? 

A. — Now they are, but through the winter, they looked 
dejected and poor. 

Q. — And from the fact that they were poor in the winter, 
but are now in good condition, do you not think, Sir, they 
might be fattened ? 

A. — I think they might. I have no doubt of it. 

Q. — Do you think the beef would be healthy ? 

A. — I think it would. 

Q. — Do you think the beef would be salable in market, if it 
was known that these animals had been exposed ? 

A. — I think not, Sir. 

Q. — You would buy it ? 

A, — I should, if I couldn't get any other ; but I should pre- 
fer beef which I knew had not been diseased at all. But yet, I 
do not think any harm at all would arise to a person, from eat- 
ing that beef, — decidedly not. 

Q. — What allowance would you make in the valuation if the 
animal had been exposed ? 

Witness. — For fattening ? 

Q. — For any purpose. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 99 

A. — Now, it cannot be sold at any price, to any intelligent 
person. 

Q. — What is the creature worth, when she has been exposed 
to the disease ? 

A. — Just what she is worth to fatten, if well cured. 

Q. — One-half, or the whole ? 

A. — Under the present excited state of feeling, she would be 
almost valueless, except for fattening. That is all I can say. 

Q. — You spoke of some examinations you had made, of in- 
dications of acute and chronic forms of the disease. What do 
you mean by " indications of the acute form of disease" in the 
post mortem ? 

A. — The red hepatization. 

Q. — Were those cases where the animals were diseased, or 
where you suspected them of disease ? 

A. — I do not recollect that I have mentioned both the acute 
and chronic. 

Q. — Yes, Sir ; in the calf. 

A. — That is correct. The calf had consolidated lung tissue : 
almost the whole of one lung was entirely solid. 

Q. — But what do you regard as indications of acute disease? 

A. — This is the chronic stage ; and I was going to show what 
I considered the acute. It had effusion of serum in the thorax. 
That is decidedly an acute symptom, and a very prominent 
one. 

Q. — Peculiar to this disease, and existing in no other ? 

A. — It exists in this ; but it is peculiar to another, also. It 
exists in ordinary pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — Then that does not necessarily indicate pleuro-pneu- 
monia ? 

A. — No ; but with the solid portion of the lungs it would. 

Q. — What are the acute symptoms ? 

A. — Some hypertrophy of the lungs ; that is, a dilatation of 
lobules, a separation of the coloring matter of the blood, beneath 
the pleura, into the interstitial tissue, and effusion, all taken 
together, I should consider of the acute stage. 

Q. — Of the early stage ? 

A. — Of the early stage. 

Q. — What do you mean by red hepatization ? 



100 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I mean, a change taking place in the tissue, arising from 
a deposit of the red particles of the blood. 

Q. — You found it had taken place ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; by dissection. I have dissected off the pleura, 
and found it free ; whereas, the sub-pleural tissue had this 
appearance. 

Q. — Dr. Martin says he found what he called red hepatization, 
and that afterward he found the same symptom in healthy 
animals, killed at Worcester, where it was only the consequence 
of the arresting of the blood. 

A. — I have followed that up closely, myself, Sir ; and I have 
found a marked difference between cadaveric change in the 
healthy animal and one with this acute disease. It is decidedly 
different. The red hepatization extends further, and is isolated, 
as it were, in patches, oftentimes, till it becomes more general. 
We have that symptom described by eminent men ; and I have 
distinctly found it, although I am not a microscopist, and cannot 
speak from experience microscopically. 

Q. — Dr. Martin washed it, and found it washed entirely 
clean. 

A. — I have tried it several times, and in cases I called red 
hepatization, I could not wash it. 

Q. — How many of these cases ? 

A. — I kept no record. I report to the Commissioner, or 
agent present. 

Q. — Who has the record ? 

A. — Mr. Walker, I think. I have taken some, where I have 
gone alone, and have been obliged to take notes, and returned 
them to the Commission. 

Q. — How many cases of diseased animals did you have, to 
examine ? 

A. — I should think from sixty to a hundred. I do not know 
exactly, — fifty, sixty, seventy. 

Q. — How many examinations have you made, yourself, of 
which you have made a record, or taken notes to which you are 
willing to stand professionally ? 

Witness. — In company with others ? 

Q. — No, — your own minutes. 

A. — Sometimes another physician was present, and he might 
report, or I, or both. I alone have made, perhaps, from twenty 
to forty, — I cannot tell very nearly. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 101 

Q. — And of those you have no record ? 
A. — I have kept no record. I know that a record was taken 
at the time. 

Q. — You have never examined the record that was made ? 

A— No, Sir- 

Q. — Have you ever seen or heard of a report like this, which 
has appeared in the newspapers : A Frenchman eat the meat of 
a diseased animal, without inconvenience, while a cow that eat 
the swill of the meat took the disease ? 

A. — I read the report. It was a Frenchman who lived near 
Mr. Olmstead. Mr. Olmstead informed me that the cow came 
to one of his stags and smelt of him, and took the disease from 
his nose. I attribute the disease of the cow to exposure to the 
stag. 

Q. — What part of the animal is first attacked ? 

A. — The lung, in my opinion. 

Q. — That is the primary seat of the disease ? 

A. — I think so, decidedly. 

Q. — And not the blood ? 

A. — I think so, decidedly ; but then, the blood is at all times 
in the lungs. 

Q. — Yes ; but the question is, where does the disease first 
attach itself — to the blood or the lungs ? 

A. — I think, to the lungs. 

Q. — Has the blood of any animal ever been examined ? 

A. — Blood has been put into vials on one or two occasions, 
but whether it has been examined or not, I do not know. 

Q. — Has the milk of cows affected by the disease ever been 
tested ? 

A. — Not to my knowledge. 

Q. — How do you account for the success of inoculation, if 
the disease attacks the lungs in the first instance ? 

A. — I don't believe in the success of inoculation, to begin 
with. 

Q. — Has it ever been attempted in this country ? 

A. — Not to my knowledge. 

Q. — What treatment did you adopt in the Brookfield cases ? 

A. — None, Sir ; I was not called there as a practitioner. 

Q. — What treatment have you used with Mr. Chenery's 
herd ? 



102 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A, — I was present, and coincided in the treatment, as I said 
before — counter-irritation, attending to the general condition 
of the animals, the bowels, <fcc. 

Q. — " Attending " does not seem to be any treatment, but 
merely watching ? 

A. — If the animal was costive, I gave an aperient, or laxa- 
tive ; if too lax, something that would work the other way. 
The treatment was a little sulphate of magnesia, at first ; after- 
wards, thoroughwort tea was administered, the sides were 
blistered, and the dewlap plugged. 

Q. — Has any case been treated for disease in the blood, on 
the ground that the disease first attacked the blood ? 

A. — Not that I know of. 

Q. — Have you treated any case of recent exposure, before 
the development of the disease, in any way ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Did you make any inquiry as to what had been the 
keeping of those animals in North Brookfield through the 
winter ? Were the cattle fed as they are commonly in the 
country ? 

A. — I presume so ; I do not know any thing to the contrary. 

Q. — Will you give an account of the animal which you 
slaughtered at Mr. Chenery's on Saturday ? — the history of 
that animal, from the beginning ? 

A. — As far as I can. I was not acquainted with Mr. Che- 
nery's herd until last November. I then examined the animal, 
and found evident marks of disease. The animal coughed 
frequently, and upon auscultation, a decided solidification and 
loss of the use of the lung was manifested. I have seen her 
several times since. She has been gradually improving, al- 
though at all times, auscultation manifested the presence of 
disease in the right lung. Percussion also indicated adhesions, 
as the sound was dull from the right side. On Saturday, she 
was slaughtered. Upon attempting to take off the ribs on that 
side, they were found firmly attached, by a very tough, fibrous 
band, between the pleura-costalis and the ribs, and the pleura 
and lungs. That was divided, and then we found the lungs 
adhering to the diaphragm, to the posterior and anterior part, 
very firmly. We separated it from the bronchial tubes, near 
the root, and took it out. Afterwards, it was laid open, and a 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 103 

cyst was found in it, some eight, nine, or ten inches long, with 
a connection with the large bronchial tube ; and in that and in 
the bronchial tube was a kind of mucous. A very small 
portion of that lung only was what we should call a healthy 
lung tissue — scarcely any. 

Q. — Was there an inch square any where ? 

A. — Not in any one place. 

Q. — Was there any healthy division of the lobes, as there 
usually is in a healthy lung ? 

A. — One large lobe could not be distinguished — two seemed 
to be absent. 

Q. — Do you know, from Mr. Chenery, when this animal 
became sick ? 

A. — He said, in September ? 

Q. — Did he tell you how the animal was at that time ? 

A. — Nothing further than that she was quite sick. 

Q. — What has been the condition of that animal, from the 
first of your seeing it, in November, to the time of its slaughter? 

A. — It looked somewhat debilitated during the autumn and 
winter, and would always cough a short time after eating. This 
spring she evidently very decidedly improved in condition. 

Q. — Had she a good appetite ? 

A. — Yes, and ruminated; and yet, after eating a little, she 
would almost incessantly cough. 

Evidence of Prof. W. S. Clark. 

Prof. W. S. Clark, of Amherst, was then called upon. He 
said : — 

I have no new facts to communicate, and my opinions may 
be of but little value, as I am not a professional veterinarian, 
nor a commissioner, nor a legislator ; and yet, I am greatly 
interested in this thing. Not many weeks ago, I was in bliss- 
ful ignorance respecting this disease, and I would to God I 
could go back to that same condition ; — but, having been called 
upon by the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, as President 
of the Hampshire Agricultural Society, to meet the Commis- 
sioners, and investigate the condition of things there, I went, 
and like many others who have gone there, had my eyes 
opened, and opened so thoroughly that I cannot shut them close 
enough to exclude the scenes that I there witnessed, day nor 



104 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

night. I shall not attempt to depict the wretchedness of the 
people in that unfortunate dairy district where this terrific 
scourge has wrought its legitimate effects ; and I wish that 
every man who is active in this matter, that every man here, 
might go to Brookfield, and enter one of the farm-houses 

Mr. Wentworth. — Mr. Chairman, this Committee have met 
here to hear evidence, and not to hear speeches. Our time is 
precious, the time of the State is precious, and our expenses 
are large. I think, if the gentleman has any testimony to give 
to the Committee, that is one thing, but I do not think it comes 
within the line of our duty to meet here and hear addresses to 
the Committee and the audience indiscriminately. If the gen- 
tleman has any facts or opinions to give in reference to the 
subject under consideration, it would be very proper for us to 
hear them ; but to hold a meeting for lectures is something that 
I think we have no right to do. I should be glad to hear any 
opinions or facts the gentleman may have to offer, but beyond 
that, I think we have no right to go. 

Prof. Clark. — The practical question is, whether we shall 
allow the disease to take its own course, or extirpate it. 
The Commissioners have acted with great energy and discre- 
tion, and have the confidence of the public, especially of that 
portion of the public among whom they have acted, who are 
thoroughly acquainted with the manner in which they have 
discharged their duty. But an opposition has been manifested 
by some — and by the very men who ought to have been leaders 
in this work of extirpation — that has been deeply felt by the 
Commission, and been a source of very great anxiety to them. 
I had supposed that sound sense and true philosophy were the 
characteristics of the learned physicians of Massachusetts, but I 
must confess that my faith has been sadly shaken, by the 
course they have taken in regard to this disease. 

Mr. Eldridge. — It seems to me that this is not the legitimate 
course for the Committee to pursue. If the gentleman is here 
for the purpose of stating certain facts, that is one thing. If he 
has been put upon the stand by the Commissioners as a witness, 
let them examine him ; but, as Chairman of the Committee on 
the part of the House, I am not disposed to allow this course to 
be pursued any longer. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 105 

Mr. Lathrop. — The Commissioners do not propose to make 
any examinations at all. 

Mr. Eldridge. It seems to me, if the Commissioners have 
no questions to ask, and the Committee have no questions to 
ask, the gentleman is not wanted. 

Mr. Whiting. — Was he summoned as a witness ? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Q. — Do you know any thing about the identity of this 
disease with that known in Europe and Africa as pleuro- 
pneumonia ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

The Chairman. — Has the witness any suggestions to make 
as to the best way of extirpating the disease, which he wishes 
to state to the Committee ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. I have the belief, in the first place, — and I 
think that is the thing to be settled in the beginning, — that 
the disease is contagious, and, therefore, I believe it is possible 
to do something ; and the thing to be done, in my judgment, is 
to carry out the provisions of the Act that was passed — namely, 
to extirpate the disease. If there is any thing to be done, it is 
extirpation. It is not to find a method of prevention, not to 
find a remedy, but it is to get rid of the whole thing ; and if I 
knew a remedy that would cure three-quarters of the diseased 
animals in the State, I would not, for a thousand dollars, state 
the fact, for it would only paralyze the efforts of those who are 
now trying to get it out of the country. The true method of 
procedure is clear enough — it may not be to every one, but it 
is to me. Every animal that is sick, or has been sick, should 
be killed ; and if I had it in my power, there should not be an 
animal of that description alive twenty-four hours from this 
time. There are many points with regard to this disease which 
are entirely unsettled. No man can tell what exposures con- 
sist in, how long the seeds of the disease remain in the system, 
whether an animal will ever get well, or whether the disease is 
hereditary or not. With all these doubtful points, it seems to 
me that all the action of the Committee should be based upon 
one fact, namely, that if you kill the diseased cattle, and bury 
them five feet under ground, they will not give it to others. 
No man knows any thing else that will stop the infection, 
therefore I would have them all killed^-those, on the one hand, 

14 



10 6 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

that have been diseased, and, on the other, those that have been 
exposed. In cases of certain exposure, I fully believe that the 
cheapest and surest way of escaping danger is to kill them. 
But when it is not known certainly that they have been 
exposed, I would have every suspected animal taken and placed 
under guard, perfectly isolated from all other animals, and very 
carefully watched, and as fast as any symptoms of the disease 
are manifested, I would have the animals killed. It seems to 
me that it would be for the interest of the State of Massachu- 
setts, alone, to have all the cattle between the Connecticut 
River and Massachusetts Bay killed, and put under ground, 
rather than have the disease go West. 

Q. — I understand you to say that no one can tell that this 
disease is not hereditary. If it is hereditary, how are you going 
to secure the country by slaughtering the animals ? 

A. — We are in doubt in regard to all these matters, and the 
only thing is to do what we know how to do, according to our 
ability ; and if, having done our best, the thing gets the upper- 
hand of us, we must surrender at discretion. 

Mr. Bird. — I would like to inquire whether Prof. Clark has 
had a medical education ? 

A — Not a very perfect one ; I do not profess to be a doctor. 
I inherited it, somewhat. 

Q. — " The seventh son of a seventh son ? " 

A. — About that, Sir. 

Q.— That is all there is of it ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Dr. Loring. — Something has been said here about the feeling 
of the Commissioners in reference to the opposition which has 
been manifested to their course. I want to say, that the Com- 
missioners did not expect to go on with their work without 
opposition, and they feel that medical and professional gentle- 
men have a perfect right to call their conduct in question. 
We have no doubt that it has been done honestly, and with the 
firm conviction that they were doing the best they could for the 
interest of the Commonwealth. While we have our own opin- 
ions, which we have freely expressed, we are anxious that all 
those who differ from us should express their opinions before 
the Committee, and should have a fair opportunity to say what 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 107 

they see fit in this case. The other members of the Commission 
join with me in saying, that we do this without the slightest 
feeling, and that we never have entertained the slightest feel- 
ing in regard to those gentlemen who have differed from us in 
opinion. 

Dr. Loring then gave a description of the calf killed at Lex- 
ington on Saturday. He said: We were very particular to 
have the calf killed by a butcher, in the usual way, in 
order that it might be thoroughly bled, as some question has 
arisen in regard to what is the condition of the lungs growing 
out of imperfect bleeding. The lung presented the usual 
appearances found in recent cases of the disease, so far as the 
experience of the Commissioners goes. There were upon the 
external surface numerous dark, livid spots. Those spots, 
when cut into, were found to extend into the substance of the 
lung, from a line to perhaps an eighth of an inch. In the sub- 
stance of the lung, especially in the lower lobe, we found por- 
tions of lung, about as large as a walnut, which were, to a 
certain extent, broken down or disintegrated. There were 
dark, livid spots of hepatization upon it, and so easily broken, 
that the substance came all to pieces in the attempt to scrape 
off the blood with a knife. It was very evidently, to use a 
common term, on the verge of rottenness. 

Q. — Did you ever try to wash off the blood ? 

A. — No, Sir. We tried a portion of the lung, evidently 
healthy, in which the small vessels contained blood, and from 
this the knife would very readily remove every appearance of 
blood, without the substance giving way under it. 

The reason why we were called upon to examine this calf 
was this : the mother of the calf had been exposed, and within 
two days, Mr. Wellington stated that the calf had exhibited some 
symptoms — difficulty and thickness of breathing — and he sus- 
pected him to be diseased. Previous to the autopsy, the exam- 
ination from physical signs, so called, presented what is called 
bronchial respiration — that is, the sound of the passage of the 
air through the bronchial tubes is transmitted by solid sub- 
stance to the ribs, whereas, in a healthy condition of the lungs, 
there is a respiratory murmur. There was a slight dulness of 
sound. 

Q. — Do you think that the calf had this disease. 



108 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I do. If desired by the Committee, I will read a very 
interesting account of the cow killed on Saturday by Dr. Bates 
of Worcester, at Holden. 

[The Committee signified a desire to hear the account at a 
future time.] 

Q. — Might not this have been an ordinary case of pleuro- 
pneumonia, such as is not uncommon here in the country. 

A. — It would not have been in a human subject an ordinary 
case of pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — Might not the disease have been brought on by the calf 
being kept in a damp place ? 

A. — If it had been an ordinary case of pleuro-pneumonia, it 
might have been brought on in that way ; but it did not present 
that pathological appearance which is presented in the human 
subject after so short an attack of pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — How old was the animal ? 

A. — Four months. 

Q. — How long had the calf been affected ? 

A. — He said not more than two days. 

Q. — Did you examine the mother ? 

A. — Yes ; we examined the mother by auscultation and per- 
cussion, and we endeavored to ascertain the physical signs. 

Q. — What did you discover ? 

A. — There were certain appearances about the cow which 
would be interesting to a scientific man. Mr. Lathrop, who is 
a very acute observer, has noticed that the hair of diseased 
animals is very apt to stare and turn the wrong way. This 
cow presented that appearance, and upon examination, this 
bronchial respiration was indicated, and over a portion of the 
right lung, I think, there was dulness on percussion. 

Q. — Do you mean you think there was dulness, or that it 
was over the right lung ? 

A. — I think it was over the right lung. 

Q. — Do you think this disease affects the blood or the lungs 
first ? 

A. — That is rather a nice question to answer. 

Q. — A pretty important one ? 

A. — I don't think so, because it is not yet settled whether 
disease attacks fluids or solids. It was an old mooted question 
when I was a student, and I suppose it is now. I remember 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 109 

that, when I was a student, my votes were given entirely in 
favor of the theory that fluids and not solids were attacked. 

Q.— How is it since you have grown up ? 

A. — I have quit practice and gone to farming ; but I have 
never modified my opinion since. 

Q. — If this disease attacks the blood first, might not some- 
thing be administered to the cattle that had been exposed, to 
prevent its showing itself, and drive it off? 

A. — I am free to confess that I agree entirely with Dr. 
Holmes in his views with regard to specific medicines. I doubt 
if any remedy could be applied which would be of any special 
service. 

Q. — Might you not get something that would affect the blood 
and reach this disease ? 

A. — There are many medicines administered that unques- 
tionably affect the blood ; at any rate, they affect the vital con- 
dition of the animal or man. 

Q. — Have any of these been tried, to your knowledge ? 

A. — I have received, I suppose, twenty letters containing 
accounts of specifics for this disease, but they were of such a 
nature that they evidently were not worthy of any attention. 
They were quack medicines, unquestionably. And when I 
learned, from the testimony that Dr. Simonds gave before the 
British Parliament, that the disease was incurable, I took it for 
granted that he said so for good reasons. 

Q. — You say, that in your opinion, those medicines were 
quack medicines. Have you had any evidence that they were 
quack medicines ? 

A. — If the Committee should care to read the letters, they 
would agree with me. One recommends that iron should be 
given in large doses, another, that salt and soda, another that 
salt should be injected into the nostrils — and injections of all 
sorts and kinds. 

Mr. Bird.-— Are not these very much the same kind of 
medicines that were tried in the cholera by the regular faculty ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I think the cholera rather beat the faculty. 

Mr. Bird. — I think this disease rather baffles them. 

Witness. — I think so. In regard to this calf, I think she 
might have taken the disease congenitally — that is, in the 
mother. 



1 10 PLEURO-PNEUMONI A. 

Q. — Is it not a very dangerous thing for a medical man to 
say that a disease called infectious and contagious will be 
infallibly communicated to all that come into connection 
with it ? 

A. — Yes. There is a susceptibility — I think no one has 
doubted that. 

Q. — Whether the probability of communication depends on 
the condition of the subject, or upon the intensity of the morbific 
influence, or the virus, or whatever it may be called ? 

A. — That is a very hard question to settle. 

Q. — Is not that a question necessary to be settled, in order 
to determine whether to kill the diseased cattle, or subject 
them to isolation ? 

A. — I do not think it would bear upon that point at all. 
You cannot tell how far susceptibility extends. 

Q. — Unless you know in advance with absolute, or at least 
reasonable certainty, that a given percentage of an exposed 
herd must die, why kill ? 

A. — Upon the same principle, that if I had a house with the 
floors of pine, the staircases of oak, and the doors of mahogany, 
and it should take fire, I should not wait to see which wood 
would burn first. I would put out the fire if I could, by 
pulling down an ell. 

Q. — Do you think some cattle are not susceptible to this 
disease ? 

A. — I think that is pretty well established. 

Q. — What proportion ? 

A. — The percentage has never been fixed. 

Q. — Are there any marks by which you can tell which are 
and which are not liable ? 

A. — No, Sir ; no more than there are in human beings, 
marks by which you can tell who are liable to the smallpox, 
and who not. 

Q. — Then there is no way of settling the question, to be 
of practical value ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Would not certain diatetic treatment or certain physio- 
logical conditions affect the susceptibility of the animal ? 

A. — That I do not know. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. Ill 

Q. — You think that whether an animal is kept on poor food 
or proper food makes no difference ? 

A. — I should not think that was a physiological condition ; I 
should think it was sanitary. 

Q. — Is not the susceptibility to disease controlled by external 
causes, — by the diet and habits of the animal ? 

A. — I think an animal in ill health would be more likely to 
take the disease. I have no doubt that certain atmospheric 
influences would affect it, and yet some animals escape under 
all circumstances. 

Q. — It comes to this, then, that there is not much known 
about it? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Have the Commissioners kept a record of the autopsies 
that have been made ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; they have kept a record of all their proceed- 
ings. I have it at home, and the Committee can have it at any 
time. 

Dr. Loring here read the communication of Doctor Bates, in 
reference to the animal killed at Holden on Saturday, before 
alluded to, as follows : — 

Worcester, June 3, 1860. 
Messrs. Walker, Lathrop, and Loring, Commissioners, fyc. 

Gentlemen, — At the solicitation of William S. Lincoln, Esq., I this 
day accompanied him to Holden, Mass., and proceeded to the examina- 
tion of several cattle, which have baen exposed to " pleuro-pneumonia 
epizootic," by contact with the Dike cow, which animal was killed and 
examined by Dr. Thayer and John Brooks, Esq. 

One cow, owned by Lyman Rice, exposed May 14, twenty-one days 
since, presenting apparently healthy conditions, was examined, and pre- 
sented dulness over region of right lung, tenderness of spine, slight 
cough, respirations eighty per minute, heart's action much accelerated, 
had coughed several days, feeding in pasture. Examination after death 
revealed a pint of effused serum in cavity of right chest, right lung 
inflamed over quite the entire surface of the pleura, with slight attach- 
ments confined to nearly the whole circumference of lung. Near the 
superior posterior portion of lung was presented a portion of lung the 
size of a dollar, hardened in texture, and changed in color, and present- 
ing unequivocal indications of true disease. The internal structure 



1 1 2 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

thickened, and presenting rapid progress of inflammation. Bronchial 
tubes in contact with disease, slightly inflamed, and covered or lined with 
tenacious mucus. 

The right lung weighed five pounds six ounces. The left lung pre- 
sented healthy condition, and weighed four pounds four ounces. 

Heart presented the softened and flacid condition, common in the dis- 
ease, the left auricle and ventricle hypertrophied or enlarged, and 
weighed seven pounds. 

Several minute black objects were discovered in the- right lung, within 
the texture of the lung, and diseased portions similar to those discovered 
in animals at Brookfield, and two were removed from the surface of the 
lung directly beneath the pleura, and discoverable through the pleura, 
which, on examination with the microscope, presented the appearances of 
a segment of metalic leaf, dark ground, and metalic appearance of iron 
pyrites. Specimens preserved. 

I was extremely gratified with the results of examination, as they 
afforded undeniable proof of correct diagnosis in early stage of disease 
and process of development. 

Respectfully yours, 

J. N. Bates. 

Q. — Some gentlemen of the Committee would like to know 
the expenses of the Commission. Can you tell us what those 
expenses are, independent of the $20,400 ? 

A. — No, Sir. We have not got the bills of the persons we 
necessarily employed to dig the holes for the cattle, and certain 
horse hire, but suppose that $25,000 would include all. 

Q. — Including the compensation of the Commissioners ? 

A. — That is my impression, and Mr. Lathrop agrees with 
me. I was informed in the outset, by the governor, that our 
compensation would be very small. Whether he considered it 
a labor of love, or not, I do not know. 

Q. — Are there any herds of cattle still under the direction 
of the Commissioners ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; they are waiting the action of the legislature. 

Q. — At what expense ? 

A. — There are very few under any expense. There is one 
pasture in which there are forty head of cattle, for which the 
Commissioners agreed to pay a small amount for pasturage. I 
think that is all. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 113 

Q. — I would like to have you state, as near as you can, the 
extent of territory over which those thousand head, which the 
Commissioners have ascertained to have been exposed, extend ; 
whether a line cannot be run round it ; whether it is confined 
to one county, or how ? 

A. — I think there are about ten or twelve miles square, in 
the centre of the county of Worcester, in and about North 
Brookfield, in which the geographical limit can be ascertained 
definitely. Outside of that there are narrower bounds. I 
should suppose that a very small circuit about Hubbardston, 
perhaps not more than half a mile, would cover that. I con- 
sider the question in Pelham settled. 

Q.— In your judgment, would it be judicious and wise for the 
legislature to define a line, and pass an enactment prohibiting 
ingress and egress, for the time being, of cattle over that line, 
embracing this infected district, on the principle of isolation ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, I think it might ; but I would not say that 
legislation should stop there. A line might be defined, but 
what law should be passed would be best left to the Commis- 
sioners, or whoever has charge. 

Q. — Do you know any thing about the statements, that 
exposed cattle have been driven to Northfield, Wendell and 
Amherst ? 

A. — We have had no authentic accounts of diseased cattle 
in Amherst. One animal was killed, but on examination, the 
disease did not appear to be pleuro-pneumonia, exudative and 
contagious. I understand that about three hundred head of 
cattle have been exposed in Northfield, if this disease was 
pleuro-pneumonia. 

Mr. Fisher. — It is stated that Mr. Wellington said, that his 
calves went up to New Hampshire with one hundred and fifty 
others, and that these were scattered about in various localities. 

A. — I. am perfectly aware that there is a good deal of excite- 
ment about this matter, very naturally, in various sections of 
the New England States. I think that the utmost care, there- 
fore, should be taken in investigating the history of the expo- 
sure, at the outset, in all cases brought to the notice of the 
Committee, the Legislature, or the Commission. 

15 



114 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Plow long since there have been any deaths in what you 
call the infected districts ? 
A. — I do not remember. 



Mr. Lathrop. — The last I knew was the 11th or 12th of 
April. 

Evidence of William S. Lincoln. 

Mr. William S. Lincoln, of Worcester, was then called, and 
asked to state his views as to what should be done in view of 
the nature and ravages of this disease. He said : From the 
opportunities I have had of judging of the disease in Brook- 
field, and other opportunities I have had of reading accounts 
of the disease in Europe, I should, in cases of well-ascertained 
exposure, kill. 

Q. — You would not expect any advantage from attempting 
to cure them, on the whole ? 

A. — I cannot say that I should except any, from the personal 
experience I have had of it, and I certainly could not from the 
reading which I have had upon the subject. I will state one 
fact, if you will allow me to do so. I was at Holden yesterday. 
The cow that was killed there was a case of exposure to the 
cow that was driven to Pepperell. There are about fifty 
animals there, within a small circuit, that have been exposed 
to these two animals, both of which are now dead. Whether 
it has extended beyond Holden into Worcester is a matter 
about which we are all in the dark. Two oxen, which have 
been exposed to these cows, it is now promised, shall not go 
into Worcester, but they have been in, since this exposure, 
almost every day, passing, of course, more or less animals on 
the way, and standing in our wood marts. 

Q. — Did you say both were killed ? 

A. — One was killed on Friday, and the other on Saturday. 
There is a third cow, which is shut up. 

Q. — What do you mean by " well ascertained exposure ?" 

A. — Such cases as that of the cow which is termed in Holden, 
" the Pepperell cow," which was driven from North Brookfield 
to Pepperell, and the case of the Dike cow. 

Q. — Do you mean that they must have been in the same 
building and the same herd with a diseased animal ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 115 

A. — Not necessarily so ; but where there has been any com- 
munication ; as, for instance, in the case of the Dike cow, 
where it was known that she put her nose over the boards of 
the fence, and communicated with the cattle on the other side. 

Q. — What makes a case of exposure ? 

A. — I suppose it would depend upon the air and the wind, 
somewhat. I suppose the disease would not be communicated 
to animals against the wind as far as with it ; nor, probably, so 
far in a bright, fair day, as in a heavy day. 

Q. — Do you know to what extent, if any, cattle owners, whose 
animals have been diseased, have sold cattle out of the town ? 

A. — I have no knowledge. The Pepperell cow went from 
North Brookfield, and there have been other cases from North 
Brookfield, but I have not been able to ascertain any case where 
a cow, suspected of having been exposed, has been sold, except 
from that town. 

Q. — Are you perfectly acquainted with the diseases of cattle ? 

A. — Well, I have that general acquaintance which a man has 
who follows farming, and is in daily communication with his 
cattle — nothing more. 

Q. — Have you. been with the Commissioners ? 

A. — I have been in Brookfield somewhere from ten days to 
a fortnight. 

Q. — In the employ of the Commissioners ? 

A. — Not at all. I happen to have the honor of holding the 
office of President of the Agricultural Society in our county, 
and I went up at the request of a number of the trustees, (they 
having had some doubts about the disease,) for the purpose of 
satisfying myself, as much as any thing, Sir. I should like to 
say that the Hon. Mr. Brooks and myself were instructed by the 
Worcester Society, at its meeting, to express to the Committee 
of the legislature the opinion of the Society as to the means 
which should be adopted to remove this disease, which, in the 
opinion of those who had observed it, and in the unanimous 
opinion of the Society, was that of extirpation, which the Com- 
mission have followed. 

Q. — I would like to inquire whether you believe there would 
be any opposition in Worcester County if the Commission should 
be empowered to encircle the county, and prevent all egress 



11 6 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

or ingress of cattle ? Do you believe the people would heartily 
coincide ? 

A — I have no doubt of it. I can state one fact, which I 
know from communication with the officers of towns, that in 
some towns the inhabitants have taken that responsibility, with- 
out authority of law, and the vote of the town is uniformly 
respected. 

Q. — Do you think that any claims for damages would be 
presented ? 

A — I can only speak for myself. I should not. 

Mr. Bird. — If you believed the disease was neither contagious 
nor infectious, and there was no necessity for such a course, 
and you were subjected to a loss of a thousand dollars, should 
you not think you were entitled to damages ? 

A. — I do not know what I should think in a case which does 
not exist. I believe it to be contagious, and therefore cannot 
answer what I should do if I held to a different opinion. 

Winthrop W. Chenery. — (Recalled.) 

Q. — Did all the four cattle imported by you die ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — How many are alive now ? 

A.— One. 

Q. — The first two you thought died from injuries ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q.— "When did the third die ? 

A— On the 29th of June last. 

Q. — And what day did they arrive there ? 

A— The 23d of May. 

Q. — When did you observe the first symptom of disease in 
other cattle than those imported at that time ? 

A. — It was about the first week in August, I should judge. 

Q. — When did the first one die ? 

A. — On the 20th of August. This was a cow imported in 
1852. 

Q. — When those calves were sold to go to North Brookfield, 
did you suspect the existence of disease in them ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — How many of them have died ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 117 

A. — I understand they are all dead ; but I don't know the 
fact of my own knowledge. 

Q. — After those imported cattle arrived, how were they 
kept ? 

A. — They were kept in a pasture. 

Q. — But those three that died — were they kept in a pasture, 
or in a barn ? 

A. — In a barn. 

Q.— With the other cattle ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Is your herd now under the control of the Commis- 
sioners ? 

A. — I do not know. We take care of them. I understand 
we are not allowed to make use of them. We feed them. I 
don't know who will pay for it. 

Q. — Any bargain made about it ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Do you consider that you have any claim upon any 
body ? 

Witness. — Do you mean for keeping the cattle ? 

Mr. Bird. — For every thing. 

A. — Twelve or fifteen thousand dollars — fifteen, I should 
think. 

Q. — You think you are equitably entitled to that amount ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — And that is for what ? 

A. — For the destruction of the value of the property, and the 
keeping. 

Q. — You are keeping the cattle separated, under instruc- 
tions from the Commissioners ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

A Member. — -I would like to inquire whether your cattle ran 
in a pasture adjoining the fields of your neighbors, who had 
stock with which they might communicate ? And were not 
some of your cattle taken sick, and taken out of the pasture as 
soon as known to be sick ? 

A. — There was, one. 

Q. — On what do you rest your claim ? 



118 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I had a valuable lot of cattle on the 15th of April ; on 
the 16th, the State came there, and reported a large number of 
them sick, thus destroying their value. Their value is for 
breeding purposes, not for feeding. 

Q. — You did not consider them sick ? 

A. — No, Sir ; only a few of them. 

Q. — But has it not turned out that they were sick ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — They are improving, are they ? 

A. — They appear well, very well. 

Q. — Do you say that any appraisal was made of those cattle, 
either before or after they were killed ? 

A. — I am not now speaking of those that were killed. 

Q. — What is your opinion of the ox that went after the hay, 
in regard to his communicating the disease to the cow and 
calves ? 

A. — If Mr. Wellington's cattle had the disease, I have no 
doubt that they obtained it in that way. 

Q. — Still, the ox looked healthy ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — If that is so, is there not a strict propriety in the Com- 
missioners enjoining you, and keeping your cattle thus inclosed ? 

A. — I think so. 

Q. — Would you think yourself entitled to damages ; for 
injury to the value of your cattle, when, in point of fact, they 
could communicate the pleuro-pneumonia to other cattle 'i 

A. — I have no doubt that the State should take my cattle, if 
the public good requires it, but I believe it should pay me for 
them. 

A. — Did the confinement of those cattle that are now living, 
merely, and the reporting that they are diseased, so injure their 
value, that you consider yourself entitled to damages ? 

A. — I suppose that there may be two or three animals in that 
state, but the most valuable ones the Commissioners themselves 
do not call diseased. 

Q. — Did the Commissioners, when they went to your place 
in April, propose killing your cattle that were still living ? 

A. — I do not know what their views were. 

Q. — Would the mere fact of the Commissioners confining 
them affect their value, if the public believed they were sick ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 119 

A. — The public did not believe it, and do not believe it now. 
I consider that their value was injured by reporting them dis- 
eased, when they were not in the least damaged. 

Q.— What was the object of the Commissioners in their first 
visit ? 

A. — I suppose they went there to examine the cattle, and 
satisfy themselves in regard to the disease that was supposed to 
be there at the time. 

Q. — There was a suspicion in the minds of the community 
that the disease was there previous to the visit of the Commis- 
sioners, was there not ? 

A. — Undoubtedly, in some places ; but I don't know about 
its being general. 

Q. — The Commissioners went there under a strong impres- 
sion that the disease existed there ? 

A. — I suppose they did. 

Q. — Do you conceive that their visit there damaged you to 
the amount of ten or fifteen thousand dollars ? 

A. — I do, decidedly. 

Q. — Do you look upon your cattle as being any more exten- 
sively diseased after the visit of the Commissioners than before ? 

A. — No, Sir ; but I believe that it would be hard work to 
get the community to buy any of them, or to use them for any 
purpose. 

Q. — Do you think that, after the history of the calves that 
went from Belmont to North Brookfield, had been published 
all over the State, and even throughout New England, the 
people would be very anxious to purchase such animals ? 

A—No, Sir. 

Q. — You don't think any farmers or cattle-breeders would 
be anxious, after the reputation that those calves had given to 
the herd, to have any cattle from it ? 

A. — No, Sir ; not if it was thought that the disease still 
existed there. 

Q. — Do you remember the condition of the two or three 
animals that were sick when the Commissioners visited you ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. The Durham cow had been slightly sick, and 
showed traces of disease, but, in the opinion of the physicians 
present, it would recover. The Ayrshire heifer was slightly 
diseased, but, in the opinion of the physicians, would recover. 



120 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

The third was a dark Devon heifer, born two months before her 
time, with a crooked leg, swollen at the knee, which I under- 
stood to be the reason that she was selected for slaughter, to 
ascertain whether any connection existed between this pleuro- 
pneumonia and this swelling of the knees. She was killed, 
and proved to be badly diseased. 

Q. — Was any animal killed there which, in the opinion of 
any intelligent witness, was considered past cure ? 

A. — I heard no such opinion expressed, though the presump- 
tion is that the last one would have died. 

Q. — You think so yourself? 

A. — Yes, Sir, I should think so. 

Q. — Are there any examples in your herd now that have 
such strong traces of the disease that you, as a cattle-breeder, 
would consider them worthless ? * 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Do you know many ? 

A. — I have but two in my mind. There may be others. 

Q. — Should you think the animal which was killed on Sat- 
urday would have been a good animal to breed from ? 

A. — No, Sir ; it would not. 

Q. — Should you think that the small black heifer that had 
been treated with hydriotate of potassa, that had swollen knees 
was a good animal to breed from ? 

A. — No, Sir — independent of the disease. 

Q. — Had the two heifers killed by order of the Commission- 
ers shown decided marks of the disease before they were 
slaughtered ? 

A. — No, Sir ; very slight. I noticed a cough occasionally. 

Q. — Would you, at the time of the Commissioners' visit, 
have sold any of your cattle for breeders at any price ? 

A. — No, Sir ; not at that time. 

Q._Why not ? 

A. — On account of the suspicion attached to them ; and 
aside from that, I thought there was a possibility of imparting 
it. 

Q. — I understood you to say that it would be hard work for 
you to dispose of any of your herd, in consequence of the 
report which the Commissioners have made. Don't you think 
it ought to be hard work to dispose of cattle under those cir- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 121 

cumstances ? Should you be willing to buy cattle, at any price, 
situated as your animals are ? Should you be willing to prop- 
agate from cattle under such circumstances ? 

A. — I don't know as I understand what you mean. 

Q. — I understand that you keep your cattle for breeding 
purposes ; that that was their main value, and that you claim 
damages on the ground that the report of the Commissioners 
made it impossible for you to derive any benefit from them as 
breeders. Now the question is, whether you would think it 
right to propagate cattle under such circumstances ? 

A. — If you mean, whether it would be proper to propagate 
animals for sale from diseased animals, I should not. I will 
say, to illustrate, that I have a bull, considered perfectly well, 
for all purposes, never been diseased, never likely to be, that 
brought me in an income of five hundred dollars a year, which 
would have undoubtedly increased from year to year. This 
report destroyed his value, as well as that of half a dozen 
others that I have coming on — none of them diseased. Of 
course, I do not expect much patronage for that bull, under 
those circumstances, which I should have had, had it not been 
for the fact that the Commissioners went there and made this 
trouble. I am not complaining that the Commissioners did go 
there ; I think it was all right ; but I think I should be paid. 

Q. — Do you think the visit of the Commissioners has dam- 
aged the value of that bull ? 

A. — Decidedly, Sir. 

Q. — Do you think the visit of the Commissioners or the 
existence of the disease diminished the value of the bull ? 

A. — The visit of the Commissioners. 

Q. — Had there been no visit of the Commissioners, do you 
think your bull would have been as profitable this summer as 
last summer ? 

A. — Yes, provided I had allowed him to serve. 

Q. — Would you have allowed him to serve ? 

A. — No, Sir ; not this summer. 

Q. — Would you, while the suspicion of the disease, under 
such circumstances, existed in your herd ? 

A— No, Sir. 

16 



122 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Have .you any doubt that the whole trouble in Brook- 
field from the disease among the cattle emanated from your 
herd ? 

A. — No, Sir. I have no doubt of it. 

Q. — What is the fact in regard to the mortality of imported 
cattle in the process of acclimation ? 

A. — I have not lost any before. 

Q. — How many have you imported ? 

A. — I don't know. About a dozen all together. 

The Chairman here stated that the case, on the part of the 
Committee, was considered through, and Hon. Francis W. Bird, 
of Walpole, addressed the Committee in behalf of the remon- 
strants. He said : — 

Mr. Chairman : In opening the case for the remonstrants, or 
so far as I represent the remonstrants, let me say that we are 
entirely satisfied with the case as it now stands. I think, how- 
ever, we are entitled to some information from these Commis- 
sioners upon certain points as to the expense of the Commission. 
We get from the Report of the Commissioners very meagre 
details as to the costs of the Commission and how they have 
been incurred. When I had a little something to do with 
affairs at the State House, we never allowed a bill of any kind 
to be paid — a bill could not pass the Council Chamber — unless 
it included all the items of expenditure — the cost of blacking 
boots at Holmes' Hole, and the cost of being shaved at Edgar- 
town : and it seems to me that we ought to have had some- 
thing more in regard to their expenses thus far. I would like 
to know the cost of the Commission — the sum paid for cattle 
killed, specifying whose they were, where they were, and what 
they were ; and as they report that nothing was paid for 
diseased cattle, the number of such cattle killed and their 
probable value, in case the party should bring a claim against 
the State ; for I have no doubt that if they had taken my cattle 
for public uses, whether diseased or not, I should make them 
pay for it, if there was any law to do it. I want to know, also, 
the cost of the present measures which have been adopted for 
isolating the cattle kept under restraint ; there must be a good 
deal of cost attending that. After this panic is over, and these 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 123 

parties have become satisfied, — as it seems to me they must 
become satisfied, — that it is mainly the result of a foolish and 
insane excitement, and that they have consented to incur 
these expenses under its influence, I have no doubt they will 
come in and demand damages from somebody, — the Commis- 
sioners or the Commonwealth, — and they are entitled to them ; 
and some sort of an estimate ought to be made on this point. 
These are items on which, as it seems to me, the Commissioners 
should furnish fuller information to the Committee and the 
community, than we have yet ; and, as a tax-payer, I object to 
paying my proportion of the taxes, without seeing something 
more about it. Then, I hope the Commissioners will be re- 
quired to furnish a report of the examinations they made of 
diseased cattle. We have had nothing but oral statements, and 
those only in very rare cases made by the parties who make the 
examinations. I have tried to ascertain how many cases of 
autopsy individual examiners would state they made, and, as 
you all remember, the answers have been very loose and un- 
satisfactory. 

We need, at the same time, more accurate information as to 
the character of the disease, before you can report to the legis- 
lature any plan as to its treatment hereafter. If the disease is 
positively and strictly contagious, then it would seem as though 
the Commissioners might, to some extent, be justified in their 
treatment by killing. 

I will read, Mr. Chairman, the Remonstrance under which I 
appear. 

To the Legislature of Massachusetts : — 

The undersigned, tax-payers in this State, respectfully remonstrate 
against any appropriation of money for the purpose of staying the spread 
of the (so-called) cattle disease. 

1st. Because it is not proved that said disease is either contagious or 
infectious ; and unless the disease has one or both of these characteris- 
tics, all attempts to arrest its progress by destroying the cattle are worse 
than useless. 

2d. Because the legislation authorizing the killing of the cattle is a 
departure from the legitimate province of legislation, all experience 
agreeing to show that the remedy of an evil like this is more economi- 
cally and more surely secured when left to intelligent individual interests 
than by governmental interference. 



124 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

3d. Because, of the cattle which have had the disease, or have been 
exposed to contagion or infection, and have not been killed, the propor- 
tion of deaths has been less than that of cases of clearly developed dis- 
ease in those which have been slaughtered, thus proving either the 
shallowness of the Commissioners' diagnosis, or the impossibility of a 
reliable one, and proving especially that it is safer as well as cheaper to 
give cattle a chance for life, than to kill them. 

4th. Because the legislature has no right to authorize the destruction 
of private property, except as a public or common nuisance ; and for 
these contingencies, existing laws, deliberately passed, and carefully 
guarding personal rights, adequately provide, and because our Bill of 
Rights guaranties that " the property of any individual shall be appro- 
priated to public uses" only "when the public exigencies require it," 
and then " he shall receive reasonable compensation therefor." 

5th. Because the dogmatic assumptions of the contagious or infectious 
character of the disease, tend only to create and increase a panic, which 
inflicts greater injury upon the property and industry of the community 
than would reasonably be feared from the disease itself, and because 
there is every reason to believe that the healthful feed and genial 
weather of summer will do more to check the disease than the empiric's 
nostrums or the butcher's knife. 

Your memorialists therefore respectfully pray, that no*more money be 
applied to any such quixotic and mischievous purpose, and that the 
Act which has created or found such sanguinary executioners, be 
repealed. 

And as in duty bound will ever pray. 

F. W. Bird. Martin Cashin. 
Andrew Bird. Sam'l Bird. 
Horatio N. Godbold. William S. Johnson. 
D. F. Grover. James Smith. 

G. C. Park. J. N. Fisher. 
George Cox. Lemuel Allen. 
Henry E. Achorn. J. G. Hartshorn. 
Jabez Sumner, Jr. Chester Morse. 
T. W. Kennedy. Wm. Kingsbury. 
G. W. Johnson. 

Walpole, May 28th, 1860. 

Mr. Bird also presented the following Memorial from the 
Massachusetts Medical Society : — 



HEAKING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 125 

At the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, held 
on Wednesday, May 30, 1860, the following preamble and resolution 
were unanimously adopted. 

"Whereas, a disease, the nature of which is not well understood, and 
the treatment of which has been to a remarkable degree unsuccessful, 
is now prevailing among the cattle in this Commonwealth ; and whereas, 
the legislature is convened this day to consider this specific object ; 

Therefore, Resolved, That a committee of nine from the Massachusetts 
Medical Society be appointed by the Chair, to urge upon the legislature 
the establishment of a Scientific Commission to investigate said disease. 
A true copy. Attest : John B. Alley, 

Recording Secretary. 
The Chair appointed on this Committee : — 

Drs. Jacob Bigelow, Boston. 
George Hayward, Boston. 
Henry I. Bowditch, Boston. 
John B. S. Jackson, Boston. 
Oramel Martin, Worcester. 
John C. Bartlett, Chelmsford. 
Johnson Gardner, Pawtuchet. 
Calvin P. Fiske, Sturbridge. 
John G. Metcalf, Mendon. 

Mr. Bird then stated, that he had that morning received a 
note from Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, (who had been summoned as 
a witness,) stating that he had been suddenly called away to 
New Haven, upon an important professional case, and should 
not be able to attend. 

Testimony of Dr. Charles M. Wood, of Boston. 

Mr. Bird. — Did you accompany the Commissioners to North 
Brookfield ? 

A. — I did not. 

Q. — What is your connection with this case, Sir ? 

A. — My first visit to North Brookfield was with the select- 
men of the town. I also saw Mr. Chenery's cattle and exam- 
ined all the herd on the 26th of October last. 

Q. — What was the condition of that herd, at that time ? 

A. — I was then accompanied by Dr. Saunders, of Salem. I 
introduced myself to Mr. Chenery at Mr. Hale's stable in Sud- 
bury Street, and told him that I understood he had lost several 
cattle by a disease not then understood. He told me he had 



* 
126 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

lost several cattle, and had one animal very sick, which he 
would like to have any person see, who could do any thing 
for her. I visited the herd the next day, and saw an ox that 
had been sick some days with the disease. He was lying in a 
small pen in the soiith-east corner of the barn. I examined 
him very carefully, as I thought. He was much emaciated, 
his hair stared, and he was groaning somewhat when lying, and 
when urged to rise, he made several efforts, accompanied by 
loud grunts. His symptoms were labored respiration, accom- 
panied, in inspiration, with groaning, and in expiration, with 
grunts. I told Mr. Chenery that there was no possible chance 
of his recovery, and he was immediately led out into the corner 
of the field, and knocked on the head, and, assisted by Dr. 
Saunders, I made a post mortem examination. I found the 
left lung almost black, quite solid, and about three times its 
natural size, with a yellow, tough substance intervening be- 
tween the pleura-pulmonaris and the pleura-costalis, about an 
inch in thickness, with some slight infusion in the cavity of the 
chest. The opposite lung was also much diseased, but not so 
extensively. The liver had lost its natural color, and appeared 
a disintegrated and degenerated mass, giving evidence of long- 
standing disease. There were some adhesions, to be sure, to 
the right lung, but not so extensive as to the left. I have the 
minutes of the autopsy, but they are not with me ; and from 
memory I may not, perhaps, state the matter with perfect cor- 
rectness. 

Having never seen a case of what is termed pleuro-pneumo- 
nia, I was at a loss' to understand what the disease could be, 
and, for further experience in the matter, I stated to Mr. 
Chenery that if any other case should happen, I would be 
happy to have him let me know, as I should be willing to visit 
the place and treat the case without putting him to any unne- 
cessary expense in the matter. He called on me early in 
November, and said that he had two animals sick, one taken 
that morning, the other the day previous. It being a day when 
Dr. Saunders was in the city, I mentioned the matter to him, 
and he agreed to accompany me. Dr. Thayer was also there. 
We found the four-months-old Ayrshire calf, and the three- 
year-old Devon heifer, sick. The symptoms of pleurisy in the 
four-months-old calf were well marked ; they were also pretty 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 127 

well marked in the three-year-old heifer. There was a differ- 
ence of opinion between my friend Thayer and myself in regard 
to the heifer. He believed there was some pneumonia in her, 
I did not. I attended them from day to day, for some ten days, 
with very active treatment, and they apparently recovered. 

Q. — What was the treatment ? 

A. — Counter-irritation, with tonics and stimulants. It being 
a case of torpidity and debility, I thought that the treatment indi- 
cated. After some ten or twelve days, the appetite returned, 
rumination was restored, their coats looked well, and they appa- 
rently recovered. The three-year old heifer having a malignant 
disease of the eyes, I suggested to Mr. Chenery to have her 
destroyed, to which he readily consented. I agreed to notify my 
friends, Doctors Saunders and Thayer, and to go out the first fair 
day. However, on the second day of December, Mr. Chenery 
came into town and requested me to go out and see the mammoth 
cow, as she was very sick. I should have said, on our visit two or 
three days previous, there were some slight symptoms of sick- 
ness on her part, but as it was just about the time of the cow's 
calving, I said I thought it was owing to parturition. She 
calved Wednesday night; on Thursday they gave her sulphate 
of magnesia, some thoroughwort tea, and some stimulant — gin, 
I believe. Friday morning, Mr. Chenery told me that the cow 
was very sick, and wished me to go out, and take Dr. Saunders 
with me. I did so, and pronounced her laboring under a 
chronic disease of the lungs ; acute symptoms, however, had 
supervened on that condition. 1 treated her, from time to 
time, by counter-irritation, such as setonsand packing the dew- 
lap, and with remedies, — tonics and stimulants, — for about 
three weeks. About that time diarrhoea set in, when I did not 
wish to give her medicine, and I requested that one pint of 
domestic flour and half a pint of oatmeal should be mixed for 
her, and after that she became costive, and needed laxatives 
during her life, which lasted two weeks longer. She died, if I 
mistake not, on the morning of the ninth of January. Some 
seven or eight hours after, I, with Doctors Saunders and Thayer, 
made an autopsy of her, and found the lungs extensively dis- 
eased, and very much enlarged. We supposed them to weigh 
about sixty pounds. Their usual weight, in a healthy condition, 
would not have exceeded ten pounds, and it was an immensely 



128 PLUERO-PNEUMONIA. 

large cow, even at that. They were enlarged sufficiently to fill 
both cavities of the chest ; they were consolidated, and adhered 
to the anterior and superior portion of the chest by a small 
band, some two or three inches in width, and eight or ten in 
length, and very firmly, so much so that it required the 
strength of a pretty strong man to remove them, and break up 
the adhesion. The liver was somewhat diseased ; the heart 
was large, but apparently healthy. 

I should have stated, perhaps, that on destroying the three- 
year-old heifer, and examining her, we found the respiratory 
organs healthy, with one exception ; the anterior portion of the 
left lung was consolidated for some five inches in length and 
from four to four and a half in width, in its widest part. That 
consolidated part had the appearance of sloughing away. It 
appeared as if a band had been passed around it and tightly 
drawn, so much so that when a man took hold of it and pulled 
it off, it appeared to be detached from the healthy portion of the 
lung, and was only held by the pleura-pulmonaris. 

During the time that I was visiting Mr. Chenery's herd, the 
Durham cow became sick, violently so. The attendant said 
she was as sick as any animal he had ever seen. I attended 
her, and in ten or twelve days she became convalescent, and 
continued to live and do very well, until some weeks ago, when 
she was destroyed. On examination, there was found but very 
slight disease of the lungs, some adhesions, but nothing indi- 
cating serious trouble. 

Q. — How came she to be destroyed ? 

A. — She was destroyed by the Commissioners, I understood. 
I do not know the fact. 

Q. — Does that cover your knowledge of Mr. Chenery's 
cattle ? 

A. — No : I was present at the examination last Saturday, 
and saw two animals destroyed. One was a black and white 
calf, which I had seen on the 26th of February, it being then 
in the barn. It was very ill-looking at that time, and had a 
very peculiar and frequent cough, with an impaired appetite, 
and almost a cessation of rumination. I saw it from time to 
time and examined it very frequently ; and when I saw it on 
Saturday last, I made up my mind that there was still disease 
in the right lung. I had never discovered any in the left lung, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 129 

and I was somewhat surprised at the description which Dr. 
Martin gave of what he expected to find. He did not find what 
he expected to, but he found the right lung diseased ; the left 
lung, I think, was healthy. The animal had improved very 
much indeed, and it was a very well-looking animal. The 
breathing appeared normal, but disease could be detected on 
the right side by auscultation and percussion. My attention was 
called many times to the animal, and accompanied by Dr. 
Thayer, I had examined it many times. Dr. Saunders also 
examined it. The cow which was killed on Saturday was 
bought in December, — I should think on the third or fourth, — 
for the purpose of raising a calf from the mammoth cow. I 
saw and examined her on Saturday, and she gave to me evi- 
dences of marked acute disease, — the best specimen I have 
seen, except one, of any that I have attended or seen examined, 
of acute pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q.— Was it still in progress ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Is that all you have to say about Mr. Chenery's herd ? 

A. — I believe it is. 

Q. — Then in regard to North Brookfield ? 

A. — I was called upon by a gentleman from North Brookfield 
about the 22d or 23d of February last, who stated that he was 
instructed to call and see me in relation to some disease which 
they had among the cattle at North Brookfield. I think it 
was Thursday or Friday that I received the call, because I 
recollect stating to a gentleman that I had sent a communi- 
cation to London the day previous in relation to Mr. Chenery's 
cattle. I went to Brookfield on the Monday following, the 
29th, and visited several farms in that town and in New Brain- 
tree. I think the first herd of cattle I examined was at Mr. 
Olmstead's, in New Braintree. They sent me to the barn by 
myself, and wished me to discover which were the diseased 
cattle, if any there were. I walked through the barn, first in 
front of the cattle, and then behind them, and brought out five 
or six that were diseased. He said he had a little bull that he 
wanted me to examine ; and with other physicians who accom- 
panied me, — Doctors Porter, Tyler and Seavey, — I examined him, 
by ausculation and percussion, and I pronounced him diseased. 
I was next taken into a shed on the other end of the building, 
17 



130 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

to see a diseased heifer. I stated my opinion that there was 
no possibility of her recovery, and he consented to have her 
destroyed and examined in the presence of these other physicians. 
The left lung presented similar appearances to those already 
described, — a deposit of lymph between the lung and the walls 
of the chest, — and firmly adherent. The symptoms were the 
same, loss of appetite, cessation of rumination, &c. Upon 
examination, the right lung was found to be slightly diseased. 
I next went to Mr. Needham's, and there I saw a number of 
cattle diseased. In order to ascertain whether the disease was 
contagious or not, I asked which was the cow that had it first, 
and which of the others had taken it. He pointed out the 
positions of those that had taken it, — jumping from one part of 
the barn to another, some of the most remote ones having 
caught it, while others nearer had not. He said he had lost 
five cattle. We saw one fine looking cow, that was looking a 
little ill, but it was getting late in the afternoon, so that she 
was not killed for examination. She died on the following 
Saturday. 

I then went to Mr. Woodis's barn, and there I saw several 
cows which manifested disease. I also examined an ox which 
I pronounced sick, and he also had a red heifer standing out- 
side of the barn which I rather advised him to destroy. But 
some gentlemen there thought I did not know any more than 
any body else about the disease, and he declined to kill her. 
She died in a few days. 

We next went to Mr. Wilcox's, and from Mr. Wilcox's to 
Mr. Stoddard's. He had a white calf that he wished destroyed 
and examined. I examined several head of cattle there, and 
in one case I discovered an effusion. The chest was filled with 
lymph. I was surprised to find no lung there, or only a small 
portion of the lung tissue. The animal was poor and weak, 
and could scarcely walk from the barn to the pasture. 

I next went to Mr. Huntington's, and there I saw some six 
head of cattle, all of which I pronounced sick with this disease. 
He stated to me that he had lost some six or eight, and that 
this number had been removed to another place, where they 
had been kept but a short time, and were returned. He had 
kept them by themselves, not knowing, however, at that time, 
that any of the others were sick. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 131 

From that time to March, I heard no more of it, but on the 
22d of March, I accompanied Dr. Thayer on a visit to different 
herds, and I ascertained that no animal that 1 had pronounced 
ill on examination was living. They had all died or were beyond 
the power of recovery. That we were told by all. I went to 
visit some herds that I had not before, and made some partic- 
ular inquiry as to a yoke of oxen sold by Mr. Stoddard to Mr. 
Olmstead. I followed them up. But before leaving Mr. Stod- 
dard, I obtained his consent — having in his absence examined 
two or three cattle that had been treated by a man from 
Spencer, and also a calf four weeks old then lying in the barn, 
and having pronounced the latter irrecoverable — I obtained his 
consent to the killing of that calf. I examined it, and found 
a very beautiful specimen of the disease — the best I had seen. 
This calf presented the appearance of acute and also of chronic 
disease. The lung was apparently consolidated, yet there were 
symptoms of acute pneumonia at that moment. There was 
what is called interlobular pneumonia, with a small tissue 
between the lobules. That was thickened to the extent of the 
eighth of an inch, and was easily broken down. It had the 
marbled appearance so characteristic of the disease. That is, I 
may say, the great characteristic of the disease. All the 
authorities that I have been able to find state that as the 
principal characteristic generally observed. That was the 
only case I had ever seen of the kind. I saw it again on 
Saturday. 

Q. — You saw this marbleized appearance ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; and I called Dr. Dalton's attention particu- 
larly to that on Saturday last, and took a portion of the lung to 
Dr. Bowditch Saturday evening for his examination. I have 
not had an opportunity of seeing him since. 

Q. — Do you mean to say that that is the general character- 
istic of the disease ? 

A. — That is. its characteristic. 

Q. — Then all cases ought to present the same appearance ? 

A. — I think they do. It was slightly apparent in the case of 
the ox destroyed on the 26th of February. There was a slight 
checkered appearance, but it was not well marked. This calf 
that I speak of, as but four weeks old, was beautifully marked ; 
and in this cow which was destroyed on Saturday, it was appar- 



132 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

ent, though not so well marked as in the calf. That is the 
distinguishing symptom between this contagious or infectious 
pneumonia and common pneumonia. I have seen a number of 
these cattle which have been examined, that I have seen no 
symptoms of pleuro-pneumonia about, according to the authori- 
ties that I have read upon the subject. 

Q. — What is the disease with which you have found the other 
animals sick ? 

A. — I look upon this pneumonia to be the result of a specific 
disease, which I am unable to account for or to give a name to. 

Q. — If I understand you correctly, in these two cases, you 
found the distinguishing mark or feature of pleuro-pneumonia, 
which is the marbled appearance of the surface of the lungs. 

A. — Yes, Sir ; and these are the only two cases where I have 
seen it well marked. 

Q — In the other cases, what inference do you draw as to the 
non-discovery of that appearance ? 

A. — If I had been called to examine those cases, not 
having any knowledge of the existence of the disease, I should 
have said it was pneumonia, or pleuro-pneumonia, if you like ; 
it is a very common disease. 

Q. — The marbled appearance you have never seen exhibited 
in any other cases ? 

A. — No, Sir ; except the one I saw on the 26th of February, 
where it was very slight. It looked like a piece of cloth, 
shaded. 

Q. — Well, suppose you don't find it ; what is the inference 
you draw ? 

A. — Well, I hardly know how to answer that question. If I 
were unaware, as I before stated, that a disease of the char- 
acter existed, I should say that the animal had the pleuro- 
pneumonia — the common pleuro-pneumonia, which is not 
regarded by any body as contagious or infectious. 

Q. — May not that marbled appearance be apparent in the 
incipient stage ; and in the other cases, the disease be farther 
advanced ? 

A. — I do not know ; but I gather from all the authorities I 
read, that the appearance is the great characteristic of the 
disease. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 133 

Q. — What is the appearance of the disease in its early 
stages ? 

A. — I could not say ; but this calf was only four weeks old, 
and whether it took the disease in utero, or after birth, is a ques- 
tion I cannot answer ; at any rate, the disease was well marked. 

Mr. Bird. — Excuse me — the butchers in our town tell me 
that the majority of cattle they kill have just such appearances 
about their lungs. 

A. — The great majority of cattle they kill have diseased 
lungs. I can assure you of that. 

Q. — What is your profession ? 

A. — I am a veterinary surgeon. 

Q. — How long have you been in practice ? 

A. — I have been twenty-eight years in practice in this State, 
and I have been something like forty years in practice in all. 

Q. — Among cattle particularly ? 

A. — I have attended thousands of cattle and horses, both ; 
more extensively in cattle. 

Q. — Where were you educated ? 

A. — In England. 

Q. — Have you ever seen this disease previous to these 
cases ? 

A. — I have never seen lungs which exhibited the appearances 
mentioned in these three cases. 

Q. — Separating these cases from the rest — have you ever 
seen it ? 

A. — Very commonly. It is very common to find deposits of 
lymph, and to have cattle die of the disease. 

Q. — Have you found heretofore this extensive disintegration 
of the lung and the presence of this hard lump. 

A. — I have found the lung consolidated, but have never 
found this lump. 

Q. — Have you seen cases where this lump was found, or any 
thing corresponding to it ? 

A. — In the case of a cow of Mr. Chenery's which had an 
attack of the disease, but lived along for some time. Accom- 
panied by Dr. Thayer, I visited her repeatedly. She was very 
badly diseased, and died, I think, on the eighth of January. 
The mammoth cow died in the morning, and they laid side by 
side when Drs. Saunders and Thayer arrived. We made a 



134 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

slight examination of the old Dutch cow, as she was called, 
probably because she was not very good looking. We found 
the lungs extensively diseased, there being extensive excava- 
tions in them, into which you might put an inkstand. We 
found no lump. In one or two cases I have taken out a piece 
of lung tissue as large as my thnmb, which appeared to be 
enfolded in a kind of capsule, and still it was not detached 
from the lung. That I believe we saw when I examined a cow 
in Brookfield. 

Q. — Have you assisted in the autopsy of any case of previ- 
ous disease from which the animal had recovered, or had appa- 
rently recovered ? 

A. — I assisted in the examination of a Durham cow about 
six weeks ago, and I made the observation to Mr. Fay, that 
if he wished to know any thing of the disease, it would be 
well to destroy some animal that had been sick, and another 
that had been exposed, but had not yet shown any symptoms. 
They said the Durham cow had been " cured twice." She 
had had a slight attack sometime in September, and she showed 
the marks of applications of mustard then made on her side to 
relieve her. They thought she had recovered. During our 
visit, she was severely attacked ; she had labored respiration, 
and the sighing inspiration and the grunt I have described; 
her skin was adherent, rumination suspended, the eye sunken 
in its orbit, and the whole aspect ill. She apparently recov- 
ered. Upon examination after death, she was found much 
diseased, and there were some slight adhesions in the right lung 
only, but there were no apparent lumps. 

Q. — May not that have been a case where the application of 
medicine stayed the progress of the disease ? 

A. — I have no doubt that the active treatment she was sub- 
jected to, arrested the progress of the disease. 

Q. — You have not seen any case which presented a lump 
enclosed in a cyst as described by Dr. Martin ? 

A. — I have not seen any thing of that kind. In one case, — I 
don't now recollect precisely where, — but in one case which I 
examined, there were one or two small lumps, a condensation 
of the lung tissue, enveloped in a kind of capsule. It was not 
detached, nor was the pleuro-pulmonaris interfered with. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 135 

Q. — You spoke of excavations in the lung ; were those sur- 
rounded by capsules ? 

A. — They were not. The pleuro-pulmonaris in those cases 
was destroyed, and there was an opening in the lung. 

Q. — Which appeared to be the result of ulceration ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Mr. Andrew. — Doctor, taking into consideration, as a part 
of all your knowledge upon this subject, that which you have 
acquired from the literature of the disease, that which you have 
acquired from the statements and testimony of other gentlemen 
here, as the result of immediate observation, and also that 
which you have learned by your own practice as a physician, 
and by your examination into morbid symptoms after death, — 
putting it all together, is it or is it not your opinion, that this 
disease which you have been treating and which has been 
exhibited to other persons, is the same disease which you think 
existed in the other cases where the marbled appearances were 
present ? 

A. — It is. I take it as a whole from the general symptoms, 
and the general appearances of cattle as described ; and I know 
of no better authority than Professor Simonds of London, — 
taking his description of the symptoms, I think it is the case ; 
but I am at a loss to understand the extent of communication, 
or the length of time required to give the disease. There is 
a great variance there. 

Q. — Have you any doubt of its being highly contagious ? 

A. — I have had strong reasons to believe it is contagious, or 
infectious, or both ; and I have had some strong reasons for 
believing the contrary. 

Q. — Do you make any distinction between contagion and 
infection ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. I think if a healthy subject were placed in a 
room which had been occupied by a diseased one, and it caught 
the disease from the atmosphere of the place, it would be 
infection. If a healthy animal were placed in the same room 
with a sick one, and caught the disease, it would be contact. 
And if this is a contagious disease, it has seemed extraordinary 
to me that there should be a herd of animals placed in a barn, 
and that the disease should slip from number one to number 



136 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

five or number ten, when the animal directly beside it does not 
catch it. 

Q. — May it not be that the susceptibility of number five and 
number ten may be greater ? 

A. — It may be ; the vital and resistant forces of some animals 
are certainly greater than those of others. 

Q. — And where the vital force is strong, can they resist it 
altogether ? 

A. — That is the only way that I can account for the resist- 
ance of some of Mr. Chenery's animals. A large calf of his is 
six months old ; it came from a diseased cow, and occupied the 
same place and sucked upon her four days. He was afterwards 
placed upon another cow. That cow was destroyed on Satur- 
day, and gave evidence of acute disease. That calf has, to 
the present time, resisted the disease, having been constantly 
exposed thus far. 

Q. — You consider him very tough ? 

A. — I suppose I must. 

Q. — Were these herds turned out during the day and min- 
gled promiscuously ? 

A.~ — I understand they were when the weather permitted. 
The disease might have been communicated in that way. 

Q. — Is there ever any discharge from the mouth or nose ? 

A. — I have seen it in one case. Mr. Chenery, however, fre- 
quently alluded to this symptom. There was a discharge from 
the mouth and nostrils of the large cow. Mr. Chenery said 
that before that occurred, he had hopes of her recovery, but 
when he perceived it, he gave up all hope. 

Q. — As the result of your experience and observation, what 
is the best mode of annihilating the disease ? 

A. — Isolation. On my first visit to Brookfield, I was called 
upon to address the meeting on the subject of the disease. I 
was asked if I considered it contagious or infectious. I hesi- 
tated to give an opinion ; I was unwilling to stand alone. I 
said, " If you will give me statistical evidence when the calves 
were brought from Belmont, and how they became diseased, I 
will take that, together with what I know of the subject, and 
the other authorities that I can look up, and then give you an 
opinion." 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 137 

I would call your attention to one fact. Mr. Chenery had 
three calves which were born in the spring of 1858. He had 
also two calves which were born in the fall of 1858. All of 
them were kept in the barn during the winter. In the spring 
of 1859, two calves, from imported stock, fell in the barn, ex- 
posed to the miasma there. When old enough to put to grass, 
he had five calves put out at Lexington, and three or four pas- 
tured on a hill sixty or eighty rods from the barn. During the 
time the smaller number were on this hill, those two were taken 
from the barn and put with them. A month afterwards, they 
were put with those at Lexington. Some three or four weeks 
afterwards, one of those calves was discovered dead. The living 
one was taken home, and remained a few days, and the balance 
were brought home in the fall, and have remained apparently 
well ever since. 

Q. — You recommend isolation ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — To what distance ? 

A. — As far as half a mile. 

Q. — Have you arrived at the conclusion that the disease is 
contagious or infectious ? 

A. — I have. 

Q. — Then why do you fix the distance at half a mile ? 

A. — Because I think it is not epidemic. 1 do not think the 
virus can be transmitted at that distance. 

Q. — Is there any medical treatment, of a preventive or 
remedial character, which can be recommended to be resorted 
to, in case the animal has been exposed, but in which the dis- 
ease is not yet disclosed ? 

A. — I think that by proper medical treatment and the adop- 
tion of proper sanitary measures, there is a fair prospect that 
the disease may be prevented. 

Q. — Do the symptoms always appear in the first stage of the 
disease well marked ? 

A. — They do not. 

Q. — Where there is suspicion of disease, what sort of treat- 
ment would you recommend ? 

A. — Tonic stimulants would perhaps be best. 

Q. — You think the disease could be cured at its commence- 
ment by right means ? 

18 



138 PLEUPO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — I think so. 

Q. — What means should you adopt where cattle had been 
exposed, merely ? 

A. — A pure atmosphere, with necessary regard to dietetics. 

Q. — Do you think disease which had been produced by a 
specific poison could be prevented ? 

A. — No, Sir — not prevented, but perhaps modified and man- 
aged by medical treatment. 

Q. — Have any remedies been found in Europe ? 

A. — Various remedies have been suggested, and are said to 
have cured. All the authorities of Europe admit that the dis- 
ease in the first stage may be cured. I think that on the con- 
tinent they cure as many as 33 or 37 per cent. 

Q. — Have premiums been offered for a remedy ? 

A. — I don't know about that. Premiums have been offered 
for the best essays on the subject by the British government, 
and various essays have been written. 

Adjourned. 

Afternoon Session. 

Monday, June 4. 
Hearing resumed at 3^, P. M. 

: Examination of Dr. Charles M. Wood, continued. 

Dr. Loring. — You seemed to think, Doctor, that there was a 
great deal of disease of the lungs found in butchers' cattle, 
in the ordinary mode of butchering. What do you suppose to 
be the cause of the disease ? 

Answer. — I think it the result of the manner in which they 
are housed and fed. 

Q. — Then you think the disease would be found in cattle, on 
the farm from which they came, and is not incident to the 
driving, or the killing them in slaughter-houses ? 

A. — To a certain extent, it may be the result of driving 
them ; but from the mode in which they are brought to our 
markets now, it would be hardly fair to state that as a fact. I 
know that all fat animals are liable to disease, both of the liver 
and lungs. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 139 

Q. — Do you think that such disease as you find in the lungs 
of slaughtered cattle, would be found in store cattle, fed as 
they ordinarily are ? 

A. — I should think it not so likely. I think, as I have before 
stated, it is the result of confinement and their mode of 
feeding. 

Q. — It would not be found, then, in a herd of thirty or forty 
ordinary milch cows ? 

A. — I think not, Sir. I think the ordinary milch cow is 
subject to disease of the chest, but not of that character. 

Q. — Do you think this disease has presented itself, in any 
form, in its early stages, as what may be called, actually, of an 
inflammatory character ? 

A. — I have never seen it. 

Q — Mr. Chenery's cattle, you said, you treated with tonics 
and stimulants ? 

A. — The first animal of Mr. Chenery's to which my attention 
was called, was the four-months-old calf. The symptoms were 
very active. I treated it by a gentle counter-irritation, and, 
secondly, by tonics and stimulants. In the active stage of the 
disease, I gave it neither tonics nor stimulants. 

Q. — You said you treated it so because you thought it a 
disease of debility ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I stated no such thing. I stated that, it being, 
in my opinion, a state of torpidity and debility, I thought tonics 
and stimulants were indicated. 

Q. — However, it does not present itself, so far as you have 
seen it, in its early stages, like a violent case of pleuro-pneu- 
monia ? 

A. — The only early cases I have seen were those of Mr. 
Chenery's, as I have stated to you, — which I diagnosed as 
pleuritic. There was a difference, as I have stated, between 
Dr. Thayer and myself, he thinking that the three-years-old 
heifer had pneumonic symptoms, while I did not. 

Q. — You said, in the morning, you thought isolation was the 
best mode of stopping the progress of this disease. How long 
do you think isolation would be necessary ? 

A. — I think, perhaps several months ; I could not say how 
long. 



140 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — I suppose you have not thought enough of the system 
of isolation, to know to what length of time it should be con- 
tinued ? 

A. — I have not. 

Q. — Have you any idea of the time when the infection of 
this disease passes away ? 

A. — I have not. That is a matter I was desirous to ascer- 
tain. 

Q. — Can you conceive of any cases in which you would kill 
an animal, in order to stop the progress of this disease ? 

A. — I should recommend the destruction of an animal at 
any time, if satisfied it was past recovery. But as far as the 
ability to communicate the disease is concerned, of that I 
should not be able to judge, knowing nothing of the length of 
incubation, and nothing of the time of propagation. 

Q. — Then you would kill the animal, simply in order 
to get it out of the way, and not to stop the progress of the 
disease ? 

A. — Taking a general view of it, that might, perhaps, answer, 
the purpose well enough ; but I should kill an animal, if, upon 
examination, I thought it beyond any possible chance of 
recovery. 

Q. — If you had an animal of your own, that you knew had 
the disease, and which had exposed the herd, and you had 
reason to suppose that by killing it you might stop the progress 
of the disease among your neighbor's herd, would you kill the 
diseased animal and those exposed to it ? 

A. — In those I suspected of disease, I should like to see if 
there was not any possible chance of recovery ; but that por- 
tion of the herd which I was perfectly satisfied could not 
recover, I should entertain no objection to having destroyed. 

Q. — Then as a matter of scientific investigation, you would 
be glad to know how far you could treat the disease ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — But as a matter of practical benefit to the farming com- 
munity, and get rid of an evil to them ? 

A. — That I know nothing about. I am not satisfied that the 
disease is not curable, if taken in an early stage ; and for that 
reason I should recommend isolation. That was my object in 
so stating. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 141 

Q. — Do you know of any scientific authority in Europe, 
which says the disease is curable in its first stages ? 

A. — In its first stage, if I understand it, they all say it is 
curable ; but they say that the first stage only is curable, and 
it requires pretty careful treatment to remove it then. 

Q. — Has any man said it is incurable ? 

A— Every person, perhaps, has said it is incurable after the 
first stage. 

Q. — Do you know whether any testimony has been given by 
Professor Simonds, to the Committee of Parliament, to the 
effect that he, from his investigation, considered the disease 
incurable ? 

A. — I could not answer that question. I have in my pos- 
session the testimony of Professor Simonds, and his Reports to 
the Agricultural Society, but I do not know whether or not he 
has made a statement to the effect you mention. I have not 
had an opportunity to refer to it. 

Q. — You can refer to it, if necessary ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Dr. Loring. — I am satisfied upon the point myself, because I 
have found he did say so. 

Witness. — Did he say so in his first or second Report, or did 
he make an allusion to that effect in his address to the Farmers' 
Club in Norfolk ? 

Dr. Loring. — No, Sir. I think he stated so in his examina- 
tion before the Committee. I think you stated that you thought 
there was a remedy by which the progress of the disease 
could be prevented. 

A. — I did not say I thought there was a remedy. I said 
there had been no effort made to find a remedy by which it 
might be prevented. 

Q. — Do you think there is a remedy that can prevent the 
progress of the disease through a herd, after it has once appeared 
among them ? 

A. — If it is a specific disease, I should suppose none but a 
specific remedy could have any effect, and that I am unac- 
quainted with, and no one has found it, to my knowledge. 

Q. — Do you think the progress of a contagious disease, gen- 
erally, — the smallpox, for instance, — could be prevented by a 
therapeutic agent, — a medicinal agent ? 



142 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A — No, Sir; because I look upon it as a self-limiting disease; 
but I think it might be modified in its character by a medical 
agency. 

Q. — I do not mean its progress through an individual system, 
but through a community ? 

A — No ; I do not think it could. 

Q. — Suppose a herd of thirty cattle had got the disease among 
them, do you think there is any remedy which would stop the 
progress of the disease through that herd, if it had once broken 
out there ? 

A. — I do not know that I am led to suppose the contrary. 
I do not know that fact myself. 

Q. — I suppose the usual law with regard to contagious dis- 
ease would lead you to suppose there was not a remedy ? 

A. — There is a remedy for contagious diseases. 

Q. — None that would prevent the contagion ? 

A— -No, Sir. But there are remedies for contagious diseases 
in the human subject, and I am led to believe that there can be 
some found for the lower animals. 

Q.— You think this disease is peculiar, and not ordinary 
pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I think so. It does not look like what is commonly 
called pleuro-pneumonia. I think that is neither contagious 
nor infectious. 

[The examination here became general.] 

Q. — Where does this disease attack the animal, — in the blood 
or lungs ? 

A. — I cannot tell whether the disease is produced by inhala- 
tion or absorption, — whether through the circulation or whether 
inhaled into the lungs. 

Q. — As far as you know, has any attempt been made to 
ascertain that ? 

A. — None that I know of. 

Q. — You would recommend isolation for the purpose of 
treating the disease ? 

A. — Of experiment. 

Q. — To see what cure could be devised for it ? 

A— Exactly, Sir. 

Q. — Not with a view to this particular year alone, but for 
science generally ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 143 

A— That is it. 

Q. — How long, in your judgment, should isolation be con- 
tinued, to be safe ? 

A. — It might be necessary for several months, perhaps. It 
would be very difficult, perhaps, to answer that question ; for, 
the testimony I have heard to-day, or Saturday, shows that a 
cow has been removed from Mr. Chenery's, and remained for 
several months in the town to which she was removed, before 
the disease was discovered ; and yet another has caught the 
disease from Mr. Chenery's oxen, that were sick last September. 

Q. — Should you be willing, after isolation had been con- 
tinued for some weeks or months, to permit the animal to mix 
with other cattle ? 

A. — I should prefer months to weeks or days. 

Q. — Would it be safe after months ? 

A. — After several months, it might be safe, — I cannot tell. 

Q. — What would be the value of these cattle, after having 
been through all this process ? 

A. — I cannot tell that. 

Q. — Would they be worth as much ? 

A. — I cannot say ; I cannot tell how the disease would 
terminate. They might, and might not, be. If the disease 
was simply functional, I think, myself, in case of recovery, 
they would be worth nearly as much. If an organic disease, 
perhaps they might be lessened in value. 

Q. — What is the general rule as to the period of the incuba- 
tion and propagation of contagious or infectious diseases ? 

A. — I do not know. There is a limit, I believe, to all con- 
tagious diseases, in the human subject ; but I know nothing 
about that. 

Q.- — Does not the fact of the long period of incubation and 
propagation, in all these cases, suggest a doubt in your mind, 
as to the reality of contagion or infection ? 

A. — Well, that is the ground upon which I base my doubts. 

Q. — Are you acquainted with contagious or infectious dis- 
eases in cattle ? 

A. — I know of none. — Yes, we do, to be sure, know that 
scarlatina, in the horse, is an infectious disease. 

Q. — Do you know 'of any disease in neat cattle, that you so 
regard ? 



144 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — No, Sir ; I know of no contagious disease in cattle, ex- 
cept the one just alluded to. 

Q.— And if this is contagious, it is purely exceptional ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I should think so. 

Q. — Is the murrain contagious ? 

A. — It is a disease I am little acquainted with. I remember 
seeing a case or two when quite a boy ; but I have seen none 
of that kind in this country. That is an abdominal disease, 
however ; whereas this is a disease of the respiratory organs. 

Q. — You say that the contagiousness, for instance, of small- 
pox, cannot be affected by any treatment ? 

A. — I look upon it as a self-limiting disease. It might be 
shortened by dietetics and medical agency, perhaps. Still, it 
has, in ordinary language, to " run " a certain time. 

Q. — You do not mean to be understood to say that small- 
pox will act, in subjects of contagion, in those who are exposed 
under all circumstances, with precisely the same effect, what- 
ever their habits are ? 

A. — That would depend upon their location and their pecu- 
liar idiosyncracies, or susceptibility. 

Q. — To what extent, in your judgment, is the contagious- 
ness affected by these circumstances ? 

A. — It depends upon the locality and susceptibility of the 
patient. 

Q. — It depends upon conditions which it is very difficult to 
ascertain a priori ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Has this disease ever been made a subject of theory, and 
regular scientific examination, by discriminating and careful 
minds, in Europe, so as to have been reduced to any rule 
whatsoever, touching any of its peculiarities ? 

A. — I know that some few years since, the British Agricul- 
tural Society appointed Professor J. B. Simonds, professor in 
the Veterinary College, to travel on the Continent to obtain 
information as to the effect of inoculation, et ccetera, in regard 
to the matter. He gave a great deal of information upon the 
subject in his reports. Those reports I have had ; but the 
disease did not exist in this country, and I had not the occasion, 
nor did I care to take the trouble, to read them. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 145 

Q. — You spoke of having addressed a communication to 
London. Have you received any reply to it? 

A. — I have the communication in my pocket. 

Q. — Is it of any value for the purposes of this Committee ? 

A. — I don't know, Sir. 

Q.— What is it ? 

A. — It is with relation to the disease in Mr. Chenery's herd. 
I gave the disease no name. I spoke of a fatal disease prevail- 
ing in this section of the country at that time ; and they headed 
the article " Pleuro-pneumonia, as it has appeared in America" 
I was unwilling to give the disease a name, for I had never seen 
it ; nor was 1 willing to call it pleuro-pneumonia then. At that 
time, I had seen nothing more of it than I had seen in Mr. 
Chenery's herd. I afterward visited Brookfield, and then 
thought it necessary to write again, stating I should modify 
some opinions expressed in the preceding article, as I had since 
had further opportunity of observation, which led me to other 
conclusions. They acknowledged the receipt of it. They have 
sent me no reply. They published my first article. I expect 
to hear nothing from the second article for the next month. I 
had an article published in their work. The paper in my 
possession has nothing from them, but contains my article. 

Q. — Have you an impression that on the premises infected 
with this disease, a disinfectant would be of any use ? 

A. — I suggested to Mr. Chenery, when I first went there, the 
use of a disinfectant or something of the kind. He took that 
precaution, since which time he has had very little trouble with 
his cattle. There are some suffering with latent disease of the 
chest. 

Dr. Loring. — You know very well the authority of Dr. 
Willems, of Belgium, I suppose, as the best on the Continent ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, I do. 

Q. — An opinion from him would be considered by veteri- 
narians, as a valuable opinion ? 

A, — It has been doubted by Professor Simonds, in his reports. 

Q. — I suppose, then, that Willems and Simonds would agree 
about as well as doctors generally agree ? 

Dr. Loring. — I find the following opinion of Dr. Willems, 
which I will read : — • 

19 



146 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

" All alterative medicines, however curative they may be, are power- 
less in setting an obstacle to the evil, and in repairing the considerable 
losses which it occasions every day. The beasts which are cured by 
treatment fall away rapidly, and recover but slowly, and with difficulty, 
from the attack they have sustained." 

Q. — Has any of your experience in the treatment of these 
animals sustained this opinion of Dr. Willems ? 

A. — No ; I treated some of Dr. Chenery's animals, and they 
improved. 

Q. — I know. But there were some which we saw on Satur- 
day, that you would not consider healthy, sound animals ? 

A. — I examined the calf, on Saturday, which I had treated 
for Mr. Chenery in November last. It was examined by several 
medical gentlemen, at the same time, who were unwilling to 
state they could detect any disease in the chest, although it's 
external appearance is not very good. The animal feeds well, 
and appears in good spirits, and is improved in condition — that 
is to say, in flesh — since I last saw it. 

Evidence of Hon. Henry F. French. 

Q. — Do you know any thing of this reported case, at Exeter, 
New Hampshire, of pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I saw, in a paper published at Exeter, — The American 
Ballot, — printed, I think, the 31st of May, a statement that cases 
of this disease had occurred in that town. It gave the names 
of the owners of the cattle, in two instances, as Mr. William 
Gooch, and Joshua Getchell, stating that each of them had lost 
a cow by pleuro-pneumonia, or by a disease supposed to be that. 
And I saw that statement copied, I think, this morning, or 
yesterday, in the Herald; and the report has gone abroad in 
the community. I have heard it stated, in the cars in which I 
am daily travelling ; and have also heard another case spoken 
of, — that of a cow belonging to Dr. Perry, of Exeter. 

I was at Exeter on Saturday, spent the day there, and charged 
myself with investigating the matter, so far as necessary, in 
order that if the report was incorrect, it might be corrected. 
I saw Dr. Perry, a surgeon of great experience, and asked him 
as to the cow belonging to him, said to have been attacked 
with the disease. He said that, so far as he had read the state- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 147 

ments in the papers, in regard to the disease, his cow had mani- 
fested no symptom of it; that it was a case, not uncommon, of 
stiffening of the limbs and trouble in the chest, which lasted 
a few days ; that the cow was nearly recovered, and had 
gone to pasture ; and that there was no symptom of this dis- 
ease, so far as he knew. I dropped the matter there, supposing 
the doctor more competent than myself to give an opinion 
upon it. 

I saw Mr. Gooch, whose house is the next to my own, in 
Exeter. I saw him last evening. I got the facts from others, 
before ; but I received this statement from him, reliably. He 
says he bought the cow spoken of, about a week before she 
died. She died, I think, last Thursday. He bought her at 
Hampton Falls, of a woman of the name of Sanborn, I think, 
and took her to Exeter, seven miles. She had a calf about 
three weeks old at the time. She was very feeble, as he said, 
and now believes, from the effect of scouring a good deal, — 
which could not be stopped. He took her to his barn, and she 
continued very feeble for several days, having no symptoms, 
that I could recognize, from his statement, of any thing but 
such as you would expect from mere debility. He turned her 
out to pasture, and being strange to the pasture, she crossed a 
swamp, where sensible cattle would not have gone, and got 
mired. She was there some ten hours, before she finally was 
got out, in the night. She was well enough to eat hay and 
corn when in there. He found her lying there, next morning ; 
and he thought she was good for nothing, and knocked her on 
the head. She was given to a man, there, who gave half of 
her body to the pigs ; and the other half was buried. I cannot 
hear of any other cases on the road by which she came. I 
think that is all there is of that case. 

The other case was that of the animal of Mr. Getchell, — a 
cow he had owned but a few weeks, but had bought in the 
neighborhood. That cow was in pasture with others. (This 
was the cow more particularly suspected.) She was at pasture 
until a week ago last Friday, — the last Friday in May,— and 
giving a good quantity of milk. She then had a calf nearly 
three months old. Her milk failed in part, on that day. On 
Saturday, she gave very little milk — was nearly dry. This 
statement was taken from the mouth of a man who, if he 



148 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

did not kill the cow, examined her after she died, and who 
keeps a tin-shop, I believe. He does not profess to be a doctor 
of cattle particularly, but he comes in in extreme cases. But 
I have taken the statement in his language ; and I think the 
Committee will be able to judge as well as I, if I give the 
statement as he gave it to me. I afterwards saw others, and 
his statement was confirmed. He says that on Sunday he gave 
her a pound of Epsom salts and bled her. 

Judge French then read the following notes of the statement 
of Mr. Allen :— 

" Getchell's cow. At pasture, Friday, (last Friday in May ) ; milk 
failed in part. Saturday, nearly dry. Sunday, gave her 1 lb. Epsom 
salts, and bled her. Saw her Monday, apparently in distress, — groaned 
when she breathed — not quick. Gave her thoroughwort tea — also, \ pint 
rum, and three table-spoonfuls of mustard. She did not lie down 
much, if any, till Monday. Gave her injections. Thought it a stoppage. 
She lay down and got up, several times, — no trouble in lying down, but 
was uneasy. No symptoms of having difficulty. She died Wednesday, 
five days from the day she was first noticed to fail in the milk. Opened 
her — lungs sound, except as irritated by pouring gruel down her throat. 
Died in four minutes after pouring gruel down her throat. Found 
Indian meal in her lungs, from the gruel, — lungs perfect, except a little 
inflammation near the windpipe. The 'peck' or 'manifold' small paunch 
was hard as a stave of a flour barrel. Could not cut the feed in it with 
a knife. From third to big stomach, or paunch, empty. Kidneys 
inflamed, probably by falling several times." 

He says there was a considerable quantity of this meal in 
her lungs and windpipe. 

No scientific man saw the cow after she was killed. There 
were some bystanders, whom he did not think of sufficient 
authority to refer me to. I saw a man who had three cows in 
the same pasture, — a Mr. Haley, a butcher, and who has a con- 
siderable number of cattle. He says he saw this cow under 
treatment, several times. He saw what this man called her 
stoppage. He thought there were no symptoms of this disease. 
His cows, which were with her, were perfectly well. I cannot 
find any man except the man who keeps this tin-shop, who 
attended the^os^ mortem examination. 

My own impression is, that there is not the least cause for 
alarm as regards the town. I made this statement here, 






HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 149 

because I thought the legislature might find themselves much 
embarrassed in setting bounds to the disease, if it had made a 
step fifty miles eastward, at once. 

Q. — You have no reason to suppose the disease to exist 
there ? 

A. — I have no reason to suppose the disease to be in that 
part of New Hampshire, at all. It is said to be in Hillsborough ; 
but that matter is under investigation. 

Dr. Jacob Bigeloiv called. 

Mr. Akdkew. — Have you given to this subject of malignant 
pleuro-pneumonia, — by whatever name it might be called,- — in 
neat cattle, any special attention of your own, outside of that 
which you have given as an auditor of this testimony ? 

A. — I have no experimental knowledge on this subject, hav- 
ing never seen a case of the present epidemic. But I have 
seen something of former epidemics, among men and cattle. 
I have attended to a part of the testimony, which I have hap- 
pened to hear, and have read some other things in the news- 
papers and elsewhere. 

Q. — Be kind enough to give the Committee the result of 
your reflections upon the subject. 

A. — I have bestowed some thought upon the subject, and 
have arrived at the general conclusion that, although the inves- 
tigation now going on has elicited many useful facts in regard 
to the disease, yet the most important points to be learned are 
not yet arrived at. There are certain fundamental considera- 
tions which should govern any investigation of this sort, and 
which I believe remain yet to be settled. And one of the first 
and most important of these is the great question of the con- 
tagiousness of the disease. I am aware that most of the 
world are now reported as believing that the disease is con- 
tagious; and I am aware that most of those who have started 
on the present inquiry, and most of the witnesses whom I 
have had the pleasure to hear, have begun, not so much an 
inquiry whether the disease is contagious, as with the foregone 
conclusion that it is contagious. Some gentlemen, I do recol- 
lect, stated that they began with an unbiased mind, and have 
gone on with their inquiry until they have arrived at the con- 



150 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

viction tbat this disease is contagious. But I find, from the 
course that the investigations have generally taken, that the 
inquirers have started by taking it for granted that the disease 
is contagious. And as the'weight of arguments, and of sup- 
posed proofs, has hitherto been on the side of contagion, I 
will, without committing myself to any opinion, for I do not 
know, any more than any gentleman here knows, as to whether 
the disease is contagious or not, venture to suggest a few 
inquiries, which may be put for what they are worth, in the 
opposite scale to that of the contagion of the disease. 

In the first place, the inquiry in regard to the new outbreaks 
of the disease, has generally been, to trace what I may per- 
haps be allowed to call its pedigree, to ask where it came from, 
and not to inquire into the previous and more important ques- 
tion, whether it came at all, — in other words, whether it did 
not spring up and originate on the spot. Now we well know 
that epidemics, and among them some of the most formidable, 
the most extensive, and most deadly epidemics, are not con- 
tagious at all. Contagious diseases are those which are 
communicable from one individual to another. Non-contagious 
epidemics are those which are communicated to a large number 
of individuals, either simultaneously or consecutively, from 
some cause, irrespectively of each other. To make this plain, 
I will suppose that one or several wells in a place have been 
poisoned. The people who drink the water of those wells 
will be sick, but they do not make each other sick, nor will 
they make others sick by communicating the poison to them. 
Now I conceive there are some reasons which may go toward 
showing that this disease, supposed to be communicated by 
importation from other countries, is not so communicated in 
reality. The inquiry seems to me to have been, thus far, a 
one-sided inquiry. Investigations have been made, and facts 
noted, in regard to the few animals that have been imported, 
and which have been taken sick in this country afterwards, 
and happened to be, or were, among the first cases. But in 
the same inquiry a multitude of other cases have been 
overlooked and ignored. Cattle have been imported from the 
most infected countries in Europe, and have brought with them 
no disease whatever. I am not in possession of statistics to 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 151 

enable me to say how many cattle are imported into the United 
States. I do not know whether, in a year, there are hundreds 
or thousands, but I presume the number is very large ; but of 
the number which come from England or Holland, and other 
infected countries, the proportion of cattle which remain 
healthy is immeasurably greater than of those which become 
diseased. The disease, we are told, now exists all over the 
world, in every quarter of the globe. And among the cases 
existing there must have been first cases; for, even if the 
disease be contagious, it must have had a beginning, — it must 
have sprung up in England, in Holland, Germany, or somewhere. 
And if it may spring up once, spontaneously, why may it not 
spring up twice, or a dozen times ? And why may it not spring 
up in Belmont, or in Brookfield, as well as in any other now 
infected part of the globe ? 

In times of popular panic, all widely spread epidemics are 
believed, by the populace at large, to be contagious. This has 
been the case in regard to cholera in modern times, in regard 
to leprosy in old times, in regard to certain pestilential fevers 
in various times. And the public have acted upon this persua- 
sion, and sick individuals have been avoided, neglected, and 
fled from, as prolific fountains of contagious disease. And 
yet these epidemics are now known and admitted, by the 
intelligent part of the medical profession, to be not contagious. 

Two things are necessary to the spreading even of a con- 
tagious disease. One of these is the presence of contagion; 
and the other is the presence of what physicians call predis- 
position, or susceptibility on the part of the community, to 
take the disease. And unless both these conditions are 
present, the disease cannot spread. The most contagious 
diseases with which we are acquainted,— for example, small- 
pox, and measles,— -are always present in all large cities. And 
they do not extend so as to be considered in the character of 
epidemics, except once in a certain number of years, and the 
reason that they do not thus spread at one time as well 
as another, is that the predisposition to take the disease is 
wanting. 

Every epidemic disease has its rise, and climax, and decline, 
after which it goes out for the time, and becomes matter of 



152 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

history. And such, I presume, will one day be the case with 
the cattle disease now prevailing here. This is the fact in 
regard to the epidemic prevalence of cholera, of influenza, of 
the murrain among cattle, and the rot among sheep. They all 
have their rise, climax, and decline, and after the susceptible 
individuals have had them, and died or got well, they then go 
out for want of fuel, precisely as a conflagration in a city 
sometimes goes out after it has burnt up the wooden houses, 
leaving the brick houses standing. As to the epidemic diseases 
which are not contagious, such as the cholera and influenza, as 
I have just mentioned, they travel across continents and across 
oceans, in some vehicle with which we are not acquainted, and 
of which mankind now know as little as they did of the cause 
of lightning and thunder before the discovery of electricity. 
Perhaps this cause will one day be discovered. All I have 
now to say is that, to my knowledge, it has not been discovered. 
It seems to me that the question of the contagiousness of 
this disease, which is all-important, for it certainly lies at the 
foundation of all useful practice, and of the great question 
connected with the arresting of the disease, — it seems to me 
that the question of contagiousness may be tested by an 
experiment of the following kind. Not by collecting public 
rumors and sudden impressions or convictions of credulous 
individuals, but by taking a certain number, — say, ten or 
twenty, of healthy cattle, placing them in a healthy district, 
and then turning in among them a certain number of diseased 
cattle. That will lead, I think, to a useful result. If the 
exposed cattle shall all take the disease, and die of it, we may 
then infer that the epidemic is contagious, and deadly in its 
character. If, on the contrary, it shall turn out that none 
of them get the disease, then we shall be justified in drawing 
exactly the opposite conclusion. And, lastly, if a part of them 
shall get the disease, and the rest shall not, we shall have a 
gauge, and index, by which we may judge of the average risk 
and danger of the disease. And if it turns out that only ten 
per cent, of the exposed cattle shall get the disease, surely we 
have no reason to kill off twenty per cent, for fear they should 
get or give it. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 153 

I do not think of any other suggestions, at present, to make, 
but shall be happy to answer any questions which gentlemen 
may propose. 

I will merely state, in regard to the management and treat- 
ment of this epidemic, which I think has got to go out by and 
by, as its predecessors have done, — so far as I can learn, that 
the question at issue is as to the propriety of slaughtering the 
infected and suspected individuals among the cattle of the 
Commonwealth at large. I have not made up my mind in favor 
of the propriety of this measure. No doubt, if all the cattle 
in the State are slaughtered, the disease will stop for a time. 
But as we must have beef, and must have milk, we shall imme- 
diately go to importing other cattle, and then, if contagious, 
we may get the disease again, as we got it before. And, more- 
over, if it should turn out that half the cattle in the State are 
slaughtered, and only the remaining moiety left, I should not 
consider, even if the disease should then stop, that it was 
proved to be contagious, for, in the first place, the remaining 
cattle might still get a similar disease from an epidemic cause ; 
such as I have already stated, independent of contagion. And, 
lastly, if it did stop, I should not infer that, necessarily, the 
result had any thing to do with the supposed cause. If I were 
to state an instance in illustration of this point, I would say 
that in the dark ages, when men were ignorant and credulous, 
they attempted to arrest epidemics by hanging Jews and burn- 
ing witches ; and if this practice did not prove effectual in 
stopping the disease, they proceeded to execute more Jews 
and witches, until it did stop. But, I believe, it does not 
follow, and would not in the mind of any reasonable man now- 
a-days, follow, that these two events stood, to each other, in 
the relation of cause and effect. 

Q. — Have you ever seen, yourself, either now or at pre- 
vious times, any cause of disease in animals corresponding to 
this malignant pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I have seen cases of disease in animals, and sometimes 
where the disease was prevalent among the animals of a great 
farm. I have known herds of cattle to have numbers affected, 
and droves of swine, also ; but I have never made a study of 
such disease, inasmuch as it never has prevailed, within my 
20 



154 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

knowledge, to such an extent as to excite particular curiosity 
in regard to a minute examination of its symptoms and anatom- 
ical character. 

Q. — Then are you able to say, Doctor, whether these symp- 
toms of disease, both in the living and dead subject, which have 
been disclosed in the testimony, are new to New England, or 
not? 

A. — I am not able to say. I have no knowledge on that 
subject. What are called sporadic cases, single cases, may 
have occurred for all that I know for all time. But they have 
not been subjected to a systematic examination so as to identify 
them, and to know whether they are the same or different. 

Q. — Have you examined the accounts of this malignant 
disease as it has appeared in England and on the Continent ? 

A. — I have not. 

Q. — Are you able to pass an opinion as to this question, — 
whether the facts thus far disclosed from the examination made 
here in Massachusetts are numerous or exact enough to enable 
any one to draw a satisfactory inference as to the real character 
of the disease, touching its contagiousness or infectiousness ? 

A— -They have been numerous enough to justify one in draw- 
ing inferences in regard to its pathological character; that is, 
in regard to its symptoms and morbid appearances after death. 
As to its contagiousness, I have already stated that I do not 
think the observations sufficiently extensive. 

Q. — Can you give the Committee any opinions which would 
be needful to them touching the probability of this disease, — 
whatever it may be, — being liable to substantial reduction by 
medical treatment. I am aware this is entirely outside of 
your practice, — but as a student of natural science generally ? 

A. — I think that, like other epidemics, it could be alleviated, 
palliated, and rendered more safe, by what I should call a 
natural, salutary treatment, but I know of no very violent or 
heroic measures that would be likely to arrest or lessen its 
intensity or extent. 

Q. — To make a practical application, I will suppose a case. 
Supposing that the disease itself is a contagion, and supposing 
the contagion to be present in a herd of thirty cattle so long 
that you know all of those cattle to have been subjected to the 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 155 

possible influences of the contagion. You would infer, I sup- 
pose, as to some percentage of that thing, that the suscepti- 
bility of the contagion was also present. Then what would 
be your advice to the proprietor of the thirty cattle as to what 
he should do with all of them, before there has been any 
appearance of active disease in any one of them. And then 
in the next place what would you advise to be done for those 
who began to manifest symptoms ? 

A.— I should pursue the same course, if it were practicable, 
with cattle, that I should pursue with men, or that men would 
pursue in regard to themselves. I would remove, if possible, 
those that had been exposed, to a healthy district. I am not 
sure that this would be practicable in view of the supposed 
conflicting interests of the owners of the cattle and their 
neighbors. I do know that if a man is in Norfolk or New 
Orleans when the yellow fever breaks out, he comes, if he can, 
to Boston, or some other healthy district. So a man who 
resides in a fever and ague district, if he has got the disease, 
or expects to get it, immediately leaves the place, and goes 
into a non-malarious country, a country where he is not subject 
to the influence which brought it on where he was. 

Q. — That would not apply to contagious diseases like 
measles or smallpox. Suppose that this disease is contagious 
in animals, as measles or smallpox are in men, and a man's 
herd had been subjected to contact with diseased animals, so 
that if a susceptibility was present in the herd, the inference 
would naturally follow that some of them would be sick, is 
there any course of treatment which would seem to you to be 
wiser, so far as you know, than any other ? 

A. — The first course would be to get the animals into another 
locality. If that could not be done, I should put them in some 
situation where they would enjoy free air. I should keep them 
upon a very moderate diet, such as would neither overfeed nor 
underfeed them, and I should let them take their chance. I do 
not know of any medication which would be relied on to stop 
the progress of individual cases. 

Q. — -What should you think of the slaughter of all of them, 
on the ground that they had been subjected to disease ? 



156 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A — I should infer that there would be no case of the disease 
left if the}' were all slaughtered. But it would do no certain 
good to wait until some were taken sick, and then slaughter 
them. 

Q. — There is then no medium ground if you adopt any sys- 
tem of killing between where you begin and where you stop, 
until you have killed all ? 

A — I cannot give positive information on that point. My pre- 
sumption is that it would be a very difficult thing to carry a 
middle course into profitable execution, because most contagious 
diseases are contagions from beginning to end, and to slaughter 
an animal affected with disease after the actual symptoms of 
that disease have shown themselves, is to shut the door after 
the steed is stolen — premising that the disease is contagious. 

Q. — Suppose the disease is contagious, the only logically 
consistent system would be to slaughter every animal which 
had been possibly exposed to the contagion, would it not? 

A. — If that theory is adopted as a rule of practice, I should 
say that to be thorough, the only way is to kill all animals 
showing symptoms of disease, and all which by exposure had 
become candidates for it. 

Q — Whether you have any means of forming an opinion as 
to the probable effect of isolation; supposing you draw a 
cordon around a certain space called an infected district, — 
whether it is reasonable that keeping up non-intercourse 
between animals outside and inside, the contagion could be 
stopped,— assuming it to be contagion ? 

A. — I think it would have a good effect. It would satisfy 
the requirement of public opinion. I do not know of any way 
of isolating cattle so as to keep them from some communica- 
tion. An infected herd may be shut up from danger, but as 
the disease may appear in other places, I do not know how the 
legislation of one town can produce a non-intercourse with 
another town or State. Suppose, for example, that Massachu- 
setts should pass laws as stringent as possible to cut off all 
intercourse between the cattle of this State and those of 
Rhode Island and Connecticut, what is to hinder the cattle 
from going to the boundary fence and putting their noses 
together. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 157 

Q. — Suppose you made a neutral line ? 

A — That may be done if you produce the cooperation of 
other States ; and I think that would be very satisfactory to 
public opinion. 

Q. — Don't you think it worth while, now we have got this 
disease among us, to ascertain whether it be curable or not ? 

A. — By all means. 

Q. — Would you advise that as a medical man ? 

A. — I would advise as a medical man that squads or small 
herds of cattle should be made the subjects of different ex- 
perimental treatment; that half a dozen be treated in one 
method, and half a dozen in another method, and another half 
a dozen in a third method ; and that the result be obesrved. 

Q. — You think it would be advisable to have a commission 
appointed for the purpose of making this investigation or 
inquiry ? 

A. — I should think it might result in very useful information, 
provided it is made by individuals qualified to judge, and of 
impartial character — so that their minds might not be settled 
upon any thing beforehand. 

Q. — How, in your opinion, is this disease communicated to 
the animal ? through the blood or directly from the lungs ? 

A. — That I am wholly unable to say. I have formed no 
opinion upon it. If it is a contagious disease, it is conveyed 
by something received from the cattle ; if it is not a conta- 
gious disease, it is produced by some morbific influences 
derived from elsewhere. What part it invades first is of 
secondary consequence. 

Q. — Suppose it to be in the air, what part of the animal 
would be likely to be first affected, — the blood or the tissues ? 

A. — That I am utterly unable to answer. Nobody knows. 
It is easy to answer questions on conjecture. If you produce 
proof, the answer would be on a very different ground. 

Dr. Loring.— Doctor, if you had two herds of cattle con- 
sisting of ten each, and they were half a mile apart; and to 
improve your stock, you purchased during the last year a 
creature of Mr. Chenery, and that creature should have be- 
come sick in the herd with which you herded it, and you soon 



158 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

found that the rest of that herd were becoming sick, — would 
you remove these sick ones to your well herd half a mile off, 
to give them a chance to recover ? 

A. — Considering the question of contagion still open and 
unsettled, I might as a precautionary measure, to cover a pos- 
sible risk, make such removal. If it were a matter of indif- 
ference, or mere curiosity, I do not know that I would. 

Q. — Have you heard the testimony relative to the sale of 
calves by Mr. Chenery, and their removal to Brookfield ? 

A. — I have heard something about it. 

Q. — I mean the testimony that in every case the disease 
has been traced to one origin. On the supposition that you 
can confide in that testimony, would you call it epidemic or 
contagious ? 

A. — I should suspend my opinion until I got further evidence ; 
knowing that cholera and yellow fever, and many other epi- 
demics not known to be contagious, were traced with as much 
minuteness and exactitude from family to family, and from man 
to man, as these cases of the cattle now are. 

Q — Is that so — that epidemics are traced ? Do they not 
rise with exposure ? 

A — Some epidemics do and some do not. 

Q. — Is it not the common history of epidemics that they 
rise irrespective of connection with the disease. 

A. — Smallpox is an epidemic supposed to be communicated 
only by contagion. Cholera is an epidemic communicated by 
other causes than contagion. 

Q. — I understood you to make that distinction, — that epi- 
demic diseases originated from other diseases aside from 
contact. 

A. — The term epidemic is a general term, including both 
contagious and non-contagious diseases. Epidemics are dis- 
eases that spread over a whole community. One class is 
contagious and another class is not contagious. 

Q. — Can there be any more conclusive evidence that a dis- 
ease extending over quite an extent of territory originated in 
contagion, these being traced distinctly to one origin in every 
case ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 159 

A. — No better than to subject it to a new and decisive expe- 
riment, such as I have suggested, to see whether the converse 
of the rule will operate or not. 

Q. — If you find that calves from the same herd are sent in 
other directions, and the disease is not communicated ? 

A. — I should entertain the same views, and want more 
evidence. 

Q. — If twelve well cattle should be placed with twelve dis- 
eased ones in a healthy location, and all the well ones should 
take the disease, would it be proof that the disease was 
contagious ? 

A. — As I have already said, I should think it strong pre- 
sumptive proof. There are two things necessary to prove a 
contagious affection; one is the existence of contagion, and 
the other is that the animals were so susceptible as to take it. 

Q. — I suppose these animals were susceptible, and did not 
take it, would that prove it was not a contagious disease ? 

A. — We cannot tell in advance whether they are susceptible ; 
but if we could, such facts on either side would be strong pre- 
sumptive evidence of the contagion or non-contagion of the 
disease. 

Q. — You think, Dr. Bigelow, that this question of contagion 
is entirely open ? 

A. — I am aware that the preponderating opinion of the 
world seems to be in favor of the contagion ; but to my mind 
this opinion does not prove the contagion any more than that 
multitudes of prevalent erroneous doctrines may be considered 
as proved. 

Q. — I suppose in modern times, — especially in our enlight- 
ened community, — it is not deemed necessary in scientific inves- 
tigation to set aside all the testimony of creditable witnesses, 
is it? 

A. — Not to set it aside, but to give it all the examination it 
deserves ; and whether it comes from one or a hundred persons, 
I should say that every man has a right to form his own opinion 
from the intrinsic merits of the case itself. 

Q. — Well, when you say there have been panics and super- 
stitions in regard to epidemics, originating in former times 



160 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

you don't mean that the intellectual condition of mankind is 
the same, and that disease is less understood than it was then ? 

A. — As a general fact, the intellectual condition of mankind 
and their information are improved, and disease is in some 
respects better understood, but in others I am sorry to say it 
is not better understood. 

Q. — I suppose that if this disease has prevailed for a great 
number of years, and been submitted to scientific investigation, 
as far as science can apply to the diseases of animals, the tes- 
timony of those who have investigated it would be considered 
worthy of considerable weight ? 

A. — It is of course worthy of receiving a certain amount of 
candid attention, but it is well known that there is as much 
error in medical science as there is in theological or political 
science. A great deal of it is matter of opinion, and not of 
positive demonstrable fact. 

Q. — I suppose you are aware that some very interesting 
experiments in certain parts of Europe in regard to the con- 
tagious character of this disease were made by scientific per- 
sons there, somewhat analogous to the proposition made by 
yourself, with regard to shutting up diseased animals in healthy 
places ? 

A. — I am not acquainted with satisfactory experiments made 
in any part of the world. If the experiments have been made 
which I suggested, I should take the result of it as leading to 
pretty strong presumptive proof. 

Mr. Bird. — Nothing of the kind has been proved here, how- 
ever. 

Dr. Loring. — I am simply endeavoring to ascertain what 
scientific experiments have been made any where. 

Mr. Bird.- — I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it is hardly fair 
to bring in any knowledge which he may have of matters else- 
where ; they are not before the Committee. 

Dr. Loring. — In speaking of this question of contagiousness, 
Doctor, you suggested that there were importations constantly 
to this country, and that it was very extraordinary that cases 
of this disease should be so rare under those circumstances. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 161 

I suppose you are aware that the number of cattle imported 
from Holland to this country is small, — that the Dutch animal 
is not a favorite of American importers ? 

A. — I stated that I am not in possession of statistical facts, 
to enable me to say how many animals are imported from one 
country or another. But since I came into this room, I have 
asked the opinion of half a dozen gentlemen supposed to have, 
and whom I found to have more or less knowledge, of the 
amount and the number of cattle introduced by importation, 
and I have found that they all of them seemed to express an 
opinion that the number was quite large, and that they were 
imported from various countries ; I do not know how many 
from one country or another. But I understand that the dis- 
ease has existed in all quarters of the globe, and all countries, 
from here to the antipodes, although I did not take the trouble 
to single out any particular country from the rest. 

Dr. Loring. — Some interesting facts might be given as to 
the importation of cattle into this country, showing that the 
cattle which are favorites with breeders and importers, seldom 
come from infected districts. 

[To Dr. Bigelow.] — Have you any knowledge that the 
disease does exist in every quarter of the globe ? 

A. — No further than I have read in the newspapers, and 
heard in this room. It exists in America, in Great Britain, 
Holland, Denmark, Africa and Australia, and I know not how 
many other countries. I presume there can be little doubt that 
it has existed in intermediate countries, and in Asia, the 
remaining quarter of the globe. 

Q. — Are you aware of the knowledge which we have had 
here in regard to the instances in Africa of this disease, that 
the testimony shows that it was carried into Africa from a 
distant and infected district, and so far as any stop has been 
put to it, it has been by burning it out, by isolation ? 

A. — I do not know of any other or different facts, in regard 
to the introduction of the disease into Africa, than that at one 
time were believed to exist in regard to the introduction of 
the cholera into the United States. We know that that disease 
was a subject of great alarm. Passengers were prohibited 
21 



162 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

from landing from New York, and in some of the New England 
States, and as that procedure was founded in error, the other 
may also prove to be. Some of the statements that I have 
seen or heard in the course of this hearing, appear to me not 
very probable. I noticed that it was stated that the disease 
prevailed at one time in Denmark, and then it stopped, — how 
and when, and in what manner, I am unable to say, — and that 
it afterwards broke out in consequence of a cow being brought 
from Hungary that had the disease. It appeared to me more 
probable that the disease had remained in Denmark all the 
while, or was indigenous there. 

Dr. Loring. — I made the statement that the bringing of 
one hundred and eighty oxen from Hungary caused the re- 
appearance of the disease in Denmark. The application of 
stringent laws in Denmark had satisfied the farmers that the 
disease was nearly eradicated. In regard to Australia, doctor, 
are there any statements with regard to the existence of the 
disease in Australia that you are aware of, other than those in 
the newspapers ? Is it not a fact that all the knowledge we 
have of that country, goes to show that the seed of the disease 
got into Australia, but was destroyed so soon that it never 
spread ? 

A. — When I read the newspaper account, the only thing that 
struck me was the extreme improbability that this disease 
could have been carried in the body of a cow, on a three- 
months' passage from Europe to Australia, and that it could 
then be communicated from that animal. 

Q. — Did you ever hear of the disease in South America ? 

A. — I never did. 

Q — You referred to the analogy between hanging witches 
and Jews in times of superstition to cure distempers. Do you 
think there is any analogy between such a piece of barbarous 
superstition as that is, and an intelligent and enlightened at- 
tempt to remove disease by killing the disease-breeding cattle ? 

A. — The question whether any proceeding is enlightened or 
intelligent depends not so much upon the qualifications of the 
individuals to judge rightly, as upon the manner in which they 
apply their knowledge to practice. I believe it to be a fact that 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 163 

people are as much terrified in the most civilized times in re- 
gard to epidemics, as they are in the most ignorant and unen- 
lightened age of the world. If I may be allowed to relate an 
anecdote, I will do so. When the cholera first broke out in 
New York, where it destroyed some three thousand people, in 
the height of the epidemic, the city government of this city 
despatched a commission consisting of three physicians, to in- 
vestigate the disease, and report what they thought expedient 
to be done. I was one of the commission. After residing in 
New York three days, we returned in a steam-boat, the last 
which came from New York that season, to Providence. When 
we arrived a mile below Providence, a boat came to us with 
orders from the Board of Health of Providence to hold no com- 
munication with the shore. 

We sent repeated applications to be permitted to land and 
get home, for we were impatient and tired ; but we were kept 
there against our will the whole day, at anchor in the stream 
below the town of Providence ; and about once in an hour a 
boat came down to us to tell us that the Board of Health were 
still in session in the court house, and that the court house was 
surrounded by a mob, and that the Board of Health was dis- 
posed to allow us to land, but the mob kept sending in petitions 
not to permit this pestilential epidemic to enter into their State. 
At length a despatch came to us that we might land at Seekonk, 
in the State of Massachusetts, but that we should not land in 
Rhode Island. I do not know of any thing in the dark ages 
much less intelligent than that. 

Q. — Then you think there is some analogy between hanging 
Jews and witches who do not communicate disease, and killing 
cattle which are spreading disease in every direction ? 

A. — Both are expedient only so far as it gratifies popular 
excitement. 

Q. — If you had a herd of animals, and introduced among 
them a diseased one, and you found by experience that that 
disease passed from that animal into others — you would not 
hesitate to distribute your animals about the community ? 

A. — In obedience to the popular will and a desire to accom- 
modate it, and not to outrage any strong prejudices of the 
community, I should not. 



164 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — I am not speaking of popular prejudices ; but as a man 
and good citizen and a good farmer, what would you do if you 
had a disease brought into your herd, and it went from one 
animal to another, step by step, and you saw that the disease 
went by contagion — without the application of the nicest scien- 
tific principles — should you consider it a barbarous prejudice to 
shut up your cattle ? 

A. — If I was convinced that the disease was brought there 
by contagion, I should not allow them to go elsewhere. If not, 
I should endeavor to get at such evidence as I might to settle 
the question. 

Q. — I suppose you would be unable to say whether animals 
would be fit for breeding, — for the purposes of reproduction, — 
in this diseased state ? 

A. — I am not clear on that point ; we know that children are 
sometimes born of parents in their last illness, and those chil- 
dren grow up to be healthy, useful citizens. 

Dr. Loring. — That point has been put here once before, and 
a comparison make between men and animals ; and it has been 
stated that there were men who had but one lung, and were 
useful for all the practical purposes of human life. That may 
be true. The question arises whether there is any difference 
between intellectual and accountable being, and a simple 
animal, who is good for nothing except the service he will ren- 
der to man. It seems to me that there is, and I don't want to 
ask any question on that point. 

Mr. Bird. — I want to ask the Doctor whether, in his opinion, 
a cow or bull is affected by an acute attack, so that one lung 
is destroyed, leaving the other entirely healthy, whether the 
progeny of such animals would or would not be healthy ? 

A. — That involves further inquiry. Among mankind we 
know that there are certain diseases that are hereditary. 

Q.— Well, in case of an actual attack of pleuro-pneumonia, 
what would be the effect in that respect ? 

A. — If the animal had the disease and was recovered, I do 
not see why he is not entitled to have as healthy progeny as 
any other animal. If I understand the disease, it is capable, 
in some instances, of recovery. After he gets well, with one- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 165 

half of a lung or a whole lung disabled, then what remains to 
him is an infirmity and not a disease. He is like a man with 
one limb gone ; he is good for various purposes, though he may 
not walk very well. 

Q. — Would he be as good for procreating purposes ? 

A. — I submit that to the Committee. 

Q. — I mean a brute — not a man. 

A. — Well, what a man may do, a brute may do, I suppose. 

Q. — Do you think it would be practicable or safe to remove 
any animals diseased with a contagious disease, that is, if you 
had a suspicion that animals had a contagious disease do you 
think it would be safe to remove them to some other district ? 

A. — I think it would be safe to remove them into a healthy 
district providing their disease is contagious, if all other cattle 
are removed from the same locality. 

Q. — You don't imagine that private enterprise could do this 
thing ? 

A. — I should think it proper that the Commonwealth should 
institute experiments that might throw light upon the epidemic. 

Dr. Loring. — You thought that free air, and a moderate diet 
might have a beneficial effect upon the disease ? 

A. — Nothing strikes me as more probable, with a removal of 
the diseased animals into as different a situation as possible. 

Q. — Suppose you were to enter a country barn that reminded 
you of the once fashionable " ventilation gossamer hat," filled 
with meadow hay, you would conceive that there was free air 
and moderate diet ; and suppose you found the disease very 
extensively in such a barn as that ? 

A. — I should be inclined to try another barn ; for example, 
a colder after a warmer one. 

Q. — Well, suppose you were in a warm and tight, well-clap- 
boarded barn, with plenty of good English hay, and you found 
the disease still worse, what would you do under the circum- 
stances ? 

A. — I should either give it up and let the cattle die, or should 
try a new experiment. 

Dr. Loring. — Well, we did try a new experiment, we killed 
them — because those were the facts we found, to a remarkable 
extent, in North Brookfield. 



166 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Mr. Andrew. — Doctor, I think I have heard it stated that no 
pulmonary disease in the human system is contagious. Is that 
true ? 

A. — I know of no disease of the lungs, or generally speaking 
of the chest, which is contagious. There are some diseases, — a 
very few in number, which have appeared to be epidemic to a 
small extent, — such as what was once called typhoid pneumo- 
nia. But I do not know of any evidence that such diseases are 
contagious, or that there is any evidence that there is any 
analogy between these and pleuro-pneumonia, which Occurs in 
mankind. 

Q. — Supposing it to be true that no disease of the lungs or 
chest, in man, is contagious, is it or is it not possible to draw 
any inference from that fact touching the contagiousness of 
lung or chest diseases in neat cattle ? 

A. — I should consider the evidence to be very strong evi- 
dence. As far as it goes, the analogy leads to the justification 
of the belief that what is not contagious in one race of beings 
may not be in another. You have to jump too wide a gap 
between the human being and the brute creation to suppose 
otherwise. No such inference could be justified with certainty ; 
it is at most a probability. 

Dr. Loring. — When you were speaking of the question of 
contagiousness, you thought it might be decided by taking ten 
or twenty diseased cattle and putting them into a healthy place. 
It occurred to me that precisely that experiment had been 
tried at Brookfield ; otherwise, how do you account for the 
jump of the disease from Belmont to North Brookfield ? 

A. — I am not qualified to give decisive information nearer 
than this. I see two methods by which it could have appeared 
at North Brookfield. One of these is contagion ; the other is 
indigenous origin, arising in North Brookfield as it has done in 
some other places. 

Q. — It seems to be possible that it may have been indige- 
nous in Belmont and North Brookfield ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Mr. Bird. — Dr. Bigelow, is it or is it not safe to place any 
material reliance upon supposed analogies between this disease 
and similar diseases in foreign countries ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 167 

A. — If upon accurate comparison of the accounts given and 
reports made of the two diseases, they closely resemble each 
other, I should say it was justifiable. Not otherwise. 

Q. — What diseases, within your knowledge of the medical 
world, are regarded to be contagious other than cutaneous 
diseases ? 

A. — Smallpox, measles, hooping-cough, the ship fever or 
typhus fever. The typhoid fever we do not commonly consider 
as contagious. Ship fever is, and as an example of it, the late 
Dr. Moriarty, brother of the present Dr. Moriarty, physician on 
Deer Island, took the disease and died, having had communica- 
tion with patients there. 

Q. — Are not cases of ship fever transferred from ships to 
Deer Island ? 

A. — They are, Sir, and if there is a predisposition existing 
to take the disease, it will spread. If not, it will not spread. 
I have known cases of ship fever to the number of seventeen, 
tb be taken at one time to the House of Industry at South 
Boston, and not a secondary case occurred there. 

Q. — Does not that pretty nearly destroy the theory of its 
contagiousness ? 

A. — It shows that there was no predisposition there. It is 
pretty generally acknowledged that ship fever has a contagious 
element, and may be communicated to predisposed persons. 

Q. — Well, as a general rule, it is only eruptive diseases 
that are contagious, is it not ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I am not prepared to say so. The hooping- 
cough is considered contagious, and I think I might add, 
mumps, and perhaps some others. There are various diseases 
in regard to which the medical profession are not agreed, 
whether they are contagious or not., I have said that these dis- 
eases are generally conceived to be contagious ; I do not posi- 
tively assert myself that they are. 

Q. — Then it is very difficult to say positively how far the 
contagious virus is affected by susceptibility, or by other con- 
ditions, so as to determine that m given cases it will absolutely 
be communicated. 

A. — There are causes in existence which we cannot measure, 
and do not know at the time; and we cannot foretell the 
result in certain cases of exposure. 



168 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Dr. Loring. — Ship fever is considered contagious, generally r 
is it not? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Well, now, ship fever requires susceptibility. Would 
you consider that an argument against its contagion, or was 
the fact that I never took ship fever- when attending it in the 
hospital, an argument against its contagiousness? 

A. — That would be no argument against its contagiousness. 

Q. — Would not the law that applies to ship fever apply to 
all contagious diseases ? Is there any reason to doubt that ? 

A. — I presume it does. 

Evidence of A. B. Wilton, of Dorchester. 

Q. — What is your profession ? 

A. — I am a doctor of horses and cattle. 

Q. — Have you had any cases in your practice, of pleuro- 
pneumonia among cattle ? 

A. — I can state to you the symptoms ; the name I cannot 
tell so well. Other persons may call it what they see fit. I 
have had animals that commenced with giving less milk, loss 
of appetite, and loss of flesh. Some of them stood with their 
shoulders stooping and their backs humped up, eyes stupid, and 
laborious breathing in some cases. 

Q. — What cases have you had very recently ? 

A. — I guess I had one at 'Squire Draper's, about a fortnight 
ago. The animal got better. There were two animals sick, 
and one of them died, but not of this disease. She was turned 
into green feed, overloaded her stomach, became sick, and being 
feeble, we concluded to kill her. Dr. Cushing, of Dorchester, 
examined her. 

Q. — What was the condition of the lungs ? 

A. — On one side of the left lung there was an adhesion to 
the side, and the lung was of a darker color than in a healthy 
animal. Dr. Cushing, who knows more about the matter than 
I do, said that she had been sick, as near as I understood him, 
with this disease, but had recovered, and did not die of it. 

Q. — Did you find any cyst in the lungs ? 

A. — There was no pus, at all. 

Q. — Any hardened matter ? 

A. — Well, a small portion of the liver was hardened. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 169 

Q. — You think it was what is called pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I think, from the symptoms I have seen described in 
the newspapers, and heard talked about, that it was that 
disease. 

Q. — When was this cow taken sick ? 

A. — I should think about the last of March. Mr. Draper 
had one sick before, but she recovered, and is now getting on 
flesh, and is doing well. 

Dr. William Saunders, of Salem, was called to the stand, but 
Mr. Bird stated (a large number of the Committee having left 
the hall) that he objected to going on with only a minority 
of the Committee present ; but if it was the desire of the Com- 
mittee, he would go on. 

The roll was called, and the door-keeper was instructed to 
require the attendance of the absentees. 

Evidence of Dr. Saunders. 

Q. — What is your profession ? 

A.— I am a veterinary surgeon. 

Q. — How long have you been in practice ? 

A. — Over twenty years. 

Q. — Are you acquainted with any facts connected with this 
matter now under investigation ? 

A. — I have seen the herd of Mr. Chenery, in Belmont. 

Q. — Did you hear the testimony of Dr. Wood ? 

A. — Only a small portion of it. 

Q. — Please to state to the Committee what you know in 
regard to the matter ? 

A. — I know but very little. All I have seen, are some few 
cattle of Mr. Chenery's, when I was present at the post mortem 
examination. 

Q._When ? 

A. — I was present at the examination of the large cow, and 
an ox previous to that, and, I think, one or two head of cattle 
besides. 

Q.— When was that ? 

A.— I cannot tell the dates. Dr. Wood was present at the 
same time. 

22 



170 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — In your opinion, what was the disease ? 

A. — I think a disease of the lungs, evidently. 

Q,— What ? 

A. — There was a doubt in mind at the time, what the 
disease really was. It was called pleuro-pneumonia. There 
had evidently been pleurisy, and pneumonia, too. I can say 
of one animal that I saw examined, that I never saw an animal 
with lungs that presented the same appearance. That was the 
case of the ox that was slaughtered. I think I showed Dr. 
Loring a portion of the lungs at my house. 

Q. — What was the difference between them and the other 
lungs which you had seen ? 

A. — These had a streaked, checkered appearance, different 
from any case of acute pneumonia. 

Q. — Do you think the difference one of kind or degree ? 

A.— Both. 

Q. — Was it a difference in the kind of disease, or in the 
degree ? 

A. — A difference in the kind of disease. 

Q. — In your practice, you say you have never seen any such 
case ? 

A. — Not that I remember. 

Q. — How many did you examine there ? 

A. — Some five or six. 

Q. — Have you ever seen a case resembling the others ? 

A. — I think I have, partially. 

Q. — Upon the whole, from what you saw, and from what 
you have learned, what opinion have you formed in regard to 
the contagiousness of this disease ? 

A. — Well, I did not think, at that time, that it was conta- 
gious. I considered it a disease more of location than any 
thing else. 

Q. — What do you mean by that ? 

A. — I thought it was a disease caused by the cattle being 
kept in a close place, breathing impure air — a large number 
of cattle in a small space. But since that I have come to the 
conclusion that it must be a contagious disease, from the reports 
I have read, and from the reports made by medical men. 

Q. — Who were they ? 

A. — Dr. Wood, Dr. Thayer, and Dr. Loring. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 171 

Dr. Loring. — I understand the witness to say that he re- 
gards this disease, from his own observation, and from reports 
presented to him from other physicians, as contagious. Now, 
as that seems to be the point in issue in his examination, I have 
no questions to ask. I would merely inquire of Dr. Saunders 
if he ever saw any lung brought to the condition, by any ordi- 
nary disease with which he is acquainted, in which that lung 
was presented to him for examination last winter ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I so stated at the* time. 

Q. — What distinction do you make between contagious and 
infectious diseases ? 

A. — I suppose there is a distinction, but I consider it rather 
a fine one, and I don't think I am alone in that opinion. I 
would not like to attempt to define it myself, because I don't 
think I could do it justice. 

Q. — Have you noticed any cases in which the liver was 
examined particularly in the post mortem examination ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; the liver of the ox, I think, was examined at 
the time I saw him opened. 

Q. — How did it appear ? 

A. — It was rather in a diseased state. I think it was the 
ox, but I would not be positive. 

Q. — On the ground that this is a contagious disease — admit- 
ting, from all the facts that you have gathered, that it is con- 
tagious — do you look upon it as a constitutional disease, or a 
local disease, confined to the lungs, and that whatever constitu- 
tional disease there may be grows out of the local difficulty in 
the lungs ? 

A. — -I should think it was. I should think that the disease 
of the liver might have been consecutive — followed. 

Hon. Amasa Walker. — If Mr. Bird has got through for 
the present, I would say that I was requested to appear before 
this Committee in behalf of the Worcester South Agricul- 
tural Society. You have the letter of authority in your pos- 
session, Sir, or the clerk has, and I would thank the clerk to 
read it. 

The clerk read the letter, as follows : — 



172 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA 

Sturbridge, May 30, 1860. 

Hon. Amasa Walker — Dear Sir, — At a meeting of the Executive 
Committee of the Worcester South Agricultural Society, held in Agri- 
cultural Hall, in Sturbridge, the 29th inst., the following votes were 
passed : — 

" Voted, To appoint a special agent to appear before the legislature in 
behalf of said Society and co-operate with the members of the legislature 
within the limits of this Society in securing the most effective enact- 
ments for the suppression of the disease among cattle called pleuro- 
pneumonia. 

" Voted, That Hon. Amasa Walker, of North Brookfield, be invited to 
act as such agent in securing the object above stated." 

We earnestly hope your engagements will allow you to comply with the 
wishes of the Executive Committee in efforts to secure all the protection 
that law can confer, against the ravages of the terrible scourge among 
cattle in this vicinity. Very respectfully yours, 

D. Wight, Jr., Bee. Sec. 

Mr. Walker continued : — 

The interest which attaches to this expression of the views 
of that society depends much upon this circumstance, that they 
are situated in the locality of this disease, while, at the same 
time, they are a little removed from the centre, so that they 
may be considered as likely to look at it a little more impar- 
tially, and with cooler judgment, than those who are situated in 
the immediate neighborhood of it. A fortnight ago last Satur- 
day, I attended a special meeting of the society, called with 
reference to this disease. They had sent an invitation to the 
Commissioners to be present at that meeting. The Commis- 
sioners requested me to attend, and I did so. I found a very 
full meeting — farmers, and all others belonging to the society. 
Several professional men were present, and among others, a 
lawyer — one of the principal lawyers of that neighborhood. 
The question was brought up, and a resolution offered, to the 
effect, " that the members of this society memorialize the legis- 
lature for an efficient law upon the subject, giving the Com- 
missioners authority to adopt such measures as shall seem to 
them most expedient for the public safety, in reference to this 
disease." This legal gentleman got up and moved " that the 
society petition the legislature to abolish the law and the Com- 
mission." He defended his motion in a speech of three-quar- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 173 

ters of an hour, at least, I should think, — a very able speech 
indeed ; that is, he went into the question in extenso, and with 
great particularity, and argued his case like an able lawyer. 
Several gentlemen then rose — farmers, physicians, and others, 
and spoke upon the other side ; and then his motion was put, 
and there was just one vote in its favor, and that was his own. 
The question then came up on the motion for a petition to the 
legislature in favor of the law, and there was but one single 
vote against it, and that was this same gentleman's. 

I mention this to show the perfect unanimity among the 
people of that section in reference to this matter. There was a 
very full meeting of all classes — farmers were there, physicians 
were there, professional men and others, and they were all 
united, to a man, in the most earnest and hearty sentiment in 
favor of petitioning the legislature for an effective law. They 
knew what the Commissioners had done, and another vote that 
they passed with equal unanimity, was, that they approved the 
action of the Commissioners. 

Mr. Andrew. — Is not that like taking a vote for president in 
the cars ? 

Mr. Walker. — It should not be considered so, for they were 
met together on a very serious matter. They had come together 
to consider a matter that immediately concerned their personal 
interests. No question could be more serious to them than the 
security of their cattle, for that is a great thing to a farmer. 
They had met to consider this question in a serious and solemn 
manner, many persons speaking, and apparently with cordial 
unanimity, and a good deal of feeling; and I regard it as the 
expression of the feeling of the Worcester County South Agri- 
cultural Society on this subject. Several towns were repre- 
sented — Sturbridge, Charlton, Brookfield, North Brookfield, 
and others — and the vote was unanimous, as I said before, with 
the exception I mentioned, and there was a great deal of ear- 
nest feeling manifested. And that was done after I had ex- 
pressed the views of the Commissioners — that we wanted a law 
which should give discretionary powers to the Commissioners, 
and which, instead of compelling them to kill whole herds, 
should enable them to separate the herds, isolate them, and 



174 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

do whatever they thought necessary to secure the safety of the 
public. They understood the subject fully, they deliberated on 
it carefully, anxiously, and they voted with great unanimity. I 
think their opinion should have weight, coming from so impor- 
tant a section of the State, and from a society which is a 
thriving one, and has a great deal of influence in that part 
of the county— a society whose members own more good cattle 
than the members of any other society in the Commonwealth. 
Of course they have great interest in this matter, and I hope 
the prayer of the petitioners will be granted. I speak now 
simply as a member and representative of that Society, and not 
as a Commissioner. 

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts : — 

The undersigned, president and secretary of the Worcester South 
Agricultural Society, would respectfully represent, that whereas, the 
disease of cattle, called " pleuro-pneumonia," has been spreading to an 
alarming degree, within the limits of said society, and whereas the most 
active, persevering and judicious efforts of the Commissioners, to the 
full extent of the legal authority invested in them, have failed to arrest 
said disease, 

Therefore, at a meeting of said society, duly called, and held the 
26th instant, u to see if the society will adopt any measures to aid in 
staying the progress of the cattle disease now prevailing, and known as 
pleuro-pneumonia," it was voted that the society, through their presi- 
ident and secretary, memorialize the legislature to make the most effec- 
tive provisions by legislative enactments, for the suppression of said 
disease. 

All which is most humbly and prayerfully submitted. 

Calvin P. Fiske, President. 
David Wight, Jr., Secretary. 
Sturbridge, May 28, 1860. 

Mr. Walker. — I would ask that the President of the Wor- 
cester Centre Agricultural Society be requested to state the 
views of that society, and any action which may have been 
taken by them on this subject. 

The motion was put and carried, and 

Wm. S. Lincoln, Esq., in compliance with this request, 
said : — I can only say, in addition to what has been said this 
morning, that at a very full meeting of our society, — fuller 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 175 

than I ever saw before — called after an unusually long notice, 
that the members might have time to make arrangements to 
attend conveniently — after a long discussion, in which dif- 
ferent members of the society, some of whom had been with 
the Commission in its later operations, expressed the opinion 
that there was no possible way to eradicate the disease save by 
killing, — the society expressed that as their opinion, unani- 
mously ; and they instructed the Hon. Mr. Brooks and myself 
to make that representation to the legislature, as the expression 
of their opinion — that that was the only practical way to 
remove the disease from our midst, at any expense — and it 
was stated very frankly, that the expense would probably be 
very great. The members of that society will certainly cheer- 
fully bear their proportion. I can only say, that since that time, 
the disease has shown itself in other localities in the county, 
and there is still more serious feeling in regard to it. 

Hon. John Brooks, of Princeton. — I will only say, in addition 
to what has been said by my colleague, that I think the feelings 
of the people in that section of the State demand that some strong 
measures should be taken to arrest the progress of the disease, 
at any expense, even (I have heard it suggested) as high as a 
million of money. They would cheerfully pay their proportion 
of a tax of a million dollars, and be better satisfied even if they 
did not by the expenditure of that large sum arrest the disease, 
than if they had not made the attempt to arrest it. I have no 
doubt that is the feeling through the whole county of Worces- 
ter. 1 know that it is in the town where I live, where we are 
largely interested in stock, and have as good stock, perhaps, as 
any other town in the county — getting as large premiums at 
the County Fairs. In 1857-58, when I was in the legislature, I 
voted for a State tax of $999,999, which comes pretty near a 
million of money. The proportion of the town of Princeton 
was somewhere between $900 and $1,000 ; and the people all 
say they would rather pay such a tax than not take some vigor- 
ous measures to arrest the disease. I think if the Commission- 
ers should be authorized to go on and do any thing they saw fit, 
they would cheerfully pay a tax of $1,000 rather than not 
make the attempt. We have already got $500 subscribed in 
our small town, voluntarily, to back up the Commissioners and 



176 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

their action, and this is a pretty good proof that we could get a 
thousand very easily. 

Adjourned to Tuesday, at 9 o'clock, A. M. 



THIRD DAY. 

Tuesday, June 5. 
Hearing resumed at 9 J, A. M. 

Dr. Calvin Ellis called. 

Q. — What is your profession ? 

A. — I am a physician. 

Q.— Where? 

A. — In this city. 

Q. — Have you made any examinations in connection with 
this disease of pleuro-pneumonia among cattle ? and if so, 
please state what they have been. 

A. — I have made very few indeed, and they have been con- 
fined to fragments of lungs, which have been brought me, 
which were said to have come from animals which died of this 
disease which is under discussion. 

Q. — Do you know where it was that they died ? 

A. — I cannot be sure of the exact place where the cattle 
were sick, at the time I received the specimens, as the first was 
received two months ago. I think the last came from Belmont, 
I received them from Dr. Bowditch, who received them from 
Dr. Dalton. 

Q. — Where did you get the others ? 

A. — One was brought here from Dr. Dadd, and one came 
from Dr. Jackson, by the hands of another person. It was 
brought by a medical student. This was an entire lung, the 
only lung I have seen. 

Q. — Where did that come from ? 

A, — I cannot tell ; it was stated, at the time, but I have for- 
gotten. 

Q. — Did not Dr. Dadd state where those brought by him 
came from ? 

A. — I think he did, at the time, but I have forgotten. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 177 

Q. — Were they reported to be specimens from cases of pleuro- 
pneumonia ? 

A. — They were, all of them, stated to me to be specimens 
from animals dying with the pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — State the appearances. 

A. — The appearances have all been different from each other. 

Q. — Were these examinations made with the naked eye, or 
microscopically ? 

A. — Both with the naked eye and with the microscope. One 
specimen, an entire lung, said to be that of an animal in the 
earliest stage of the disease, was remarkable only for the great 
vascularity of it ; there was more blood in some parts than 
others, and a peculiar mottling caused by that. This local dis- 
coloration was such as I have seen in human beings, where 
there was no disease suspected to be in the lungs. I do not 
mean to say there was no disease here. I am unacquainted 
with the organs of animals, and it may be that upon seeing a 
series of specimens, this might prove to be, as was said, the dis- 
ease in an early stage, but it was simply a fulness of certain 
vessels ; but I am not able anatomically to distinguish the natural 
appearance after death from the appearance caused by disease. 

Q. — Did you make any examinations to see whether this dis- 
coloration was the result of inflammation, or simply of coagu- 
lation ? 

A. — I simply examined them with a microscope, and noticed 
nothing remarkable, so far as I could judge. 

Q. — Does this apply to all of them ? 

A. — This was only one specimen. The specimens, as I have 
stated, differed entirely from each other. 

Q. — Were any of these reported to be, or did they appear to 
be, from examination, in the advanced stages of the disease ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; some of the others. The first was a specimen 
brought to me by a Mr. Hazelton. 

I will state the* persons from whom they were received, and 
then say where they came from. I merely examined them as 
specimens of the disease, and not knowing I should be called 
upon to testify. Further, I did not interest myself in the exact 
localities from which they came. 

Q. — Was the specimen you just described, the whole lung ? 

23 



178 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

A. — I saw the whole lung, but limited portions of the lung 
only were affected in this way. This was reported to be a 
recent case. 

Q. — Pass on to the next case. 

A. — The specimens brought by Dr. Dalton, I think, from 
Belmont, which I received from Dr. Bowditch, presented ap- 
pearances entirely different from these which I have described. 
And they were not the same. I found two different diseases, 
apparently, in these specimens which came from Dr. Dalton. 

Q. — Did you have more than one specimen from Dr. Dalton ? 

A. — I think there were three or four pieces, some healthy 
and some diseased. 

Q. — From the same, or different animals ? 

A. — They were from two animals. There were portions of 
healthy lungs, I think, in these specimens. I had two speci- 
mens of healthy lungs, and two of diseased; but I think the 
diseased portions came from the same animal. But I will not 
testify as to that ; I will simply state what I saw in these speci- 
mens. 

Dr. Loring. — I will simply state, to the Committee, that Dr. 
Wood, who furnished the specimens, says the diseased speci- 
mens came from different animals, — a piece from each of the 
cows killed. 

Witness. — I will say that I did not examine these with refer- 
ence to any examination here, or I should have been more 
accurate in my information with regard to their source. One 
of the diseased portions was light-colored, and contained a great 
many firm nodules, to the feeling. I expected, on incision, to 
find that the substance of the lung was filled with some solidi- 
fied interior : but the nodules seemed to be formed of healthy 
tissue, surrounded by dense fibrous substance, as if the cellular 
tissues had become thickened. 

The other diseased portion was red, and contained quite a 
number of small, yellow nodules. In these' nodules I found, 
on microscopic examination, pulmonary tissue infiltrated with 
small globular corpuscules, resembling those we see in inflam- 
mations. 

In the other specimen, handed me by Dr. Dadd a number of 
weeks since, the appearances were entirely different from those 
which I have described, and different from any thing I have 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 179 

ever seen. In that, yellow, or brownish-yellow masses, of 
various sizes, lay in the substance of the lung, free, but sur- 
rounded by a dense fibrous membrane. 

Q. — Do you call that a cyst ? 

A. — That is what would be considered a cyst. These yellow 
masses which lay within the substance of the lung, proved to 
be the tissue of the lung itself, filled with the same granular 
matter as that which I have previously described. 

This is, I think, all I have to communicate upon the subject. 
It is all the information I have. 

Q. — Does that membrane, or cyst, exclude the air ? 

A. — I should say it would. I noticed no openings. I did 
not examine it very closely, to see if there were any. It 
appeared to be closed. 

Q. — What would become of that enclosed matter ? 

A. — It is impossible for me to say. I never saw any thing 
of the kind. 

Q. — What is the medical theory in regard to such formations 
in the lungs, supposing the animal recovers ? Does it become 
absorbed ? 

A. — I never have known of just such a substance in the lung, 
before : but I should say, if the animal did recover, making use 
of such information as I have about human beings, that this 
would become drier, shrivel in size, and, perhaps, become cal- 
careous, and remain surrounded by this cyst. , 

Q. — You do not think it would be absorbed ? 

A. — I don't know how far it would go : to a certain extent, 
it might be absorbed. 

Dr. Loring. — I was asked if I thought the lining membrane 
of this cyst was capable of absorbing this substance. I thought 
not. What do you think ? 

Witness. — I think, to a certain extent, the watery parts 
would exude. I do not think the absorbents would be active 
enough to take up the whole of this substance. 

Q. — Did you examine the sac, or covering, to see whether it 
was provided with absorbents ? 

A. — I did not. 

Q. — Is this cyst, with the contents in it, wholly exceptional 
in the morbid anatomy of the lungs, so far as you know ? 

A. — Oh, you have cysts in the lungs. 



180 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Enclosing such a substance, I mean. 

A — I have never seen any thing of the kind, before ; it was 
entirely new to me. 

Q. — Is there nothing corresponding to it, in what has been 
disclosed by the morbid anatomy of either men or animals, 
heretofore ? 

A. — You may have portions of the lung separated in human 
beings ; they may become gangrenous, and separated ; but I 
refer to this peculiar cyst surrounding this dense mass, without 
any gangrene, or any bad odor, which in ordinary cases attend 
the formation of a cyst in a human being. 

Q. — It was not a tubercle ? 

A. — Not as I understand it. 

Q. — You never saw an entire lung ? 

A. — I have seen one entire lung.; but, as I have stated, I 
could not, from the knowledge I have of the human subject, at 
least, say that this lung was diseased at all. 

Q. — Did you make a section, and divide that entire lung, or 
only examine it externally ? 

A. — Oh, yes, Sir ; I divided it, and cut into various parts, to 
ascertain its character. 

Q. — I suppose the law that tuberculous disease of the lungs 
is confined more to the upper than lower portion of the lungs, 
usually, is true ? 

A. — It ceijtainly is true. 

Q. — Was this the upper or lower portion of the lung ? 

A. — As far as I can remember, the red portions appeared to 
be scattered throughout the lung. 

Q. — But this cyst ? 

A. — It was not stated to me. I could not tell from the 
appearance of it. I have never seen an entire lung which ena- 
bled me to determine that. 

Dr. Loring. — My observation is, that this lies in the lower 
lobe, not in the upper, and, therefore, differs from any thing in 
the human subject. 

Witness. — From what I saw, I thought it more like pneumo- 
nia than any thing else I had seen. The external membrane 
was thickened, in one case, — decidedly like pleurisy. 

Q. — You said one of the diseased portions was light-colored, 
and contained many firm nodules. How do you account for 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 181 

the light color ? By the distribution of nodules through it, or 
was it the general appearance of the lung ? 

A. — It contained less blood than the other. I cannot explain 
that: but the firmness was very peculiar, and was not explained 
by the presence of any masses of the size you would expect. 
But the tissue of the lung itself appeared to be enclosed in this 
thickened, fibrous membrane. 

Q. — It had more density than ordinary lungs ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — It cut differently under the knife ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — There was nothing of that fine crepitus you usually find 
in cutting into a healthy lung? 

A. — I cannot tell, as to that. The lung contained air. It 
appeared to affect the inter-cellular substance. 

Dr. Loring. — I have stated that, in cases I have seen, it re- 
minded me of the coating of a young, not thoroughly organized 
muscle, as of young veal, or chicken. It had the same kind of 
solid — semi-solid — consistence. 

Q. — Does that example I have given correspond with your 
observation ? 

A. — Yes. It was different from any healthy lung I have 
seen in any human being. 

Q. — Have you ever seen any thing in the human subject, 
analogous to this, — a portion of the lung surrounded by a dense, 
fibrous substance ? 

A. — I do not think I have ; I have no such recollection. 

Q. — Should you think this the result of acute and active in- 
flammation, so far as you can judge ? 

A. — This of which we have just been speaking did not appear 
to be the result of an acute disease. 

Q. — Should you not think it the result of sub-acute disease ? 

A. — I did not, really, see any sign of inflammation in this 
small portion. It looked as if it might have been the result of 
inflammation. 

Q. — Do you think that one of these stages — that is, this con- 
dition of this light-colored lung containing these nodules — 
could have passed on to that stage in which you found the 
cyst ? 

A. — I should think not, from the appearance. 



182 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Did it occur to you that this first specimen might be of 
the same disease, more diffused throughout the body of the 
lung, than that of specimens which had the cyst, and was con- 
fined and circumscribed ? 

A. — I saw no sign of any process in the small specimens I 
have spoken of, which would lead me to believe active changes 
were going on, at all. It was entirely new to me, and I could 
not connect them at all. 

Q. — Any thing in the contents of this cyst, like this sub- 
stance ? 

A. — I think not. 

Q. — They seemed to be of different substance, entirely ? 

A. — Yes. That is, these nodules, which lay very near the 
cyst, were firm and dense masses. It was only upon close ex- 
amination that they seemed to bear any resemblance to pulmo- 
nary tissues, and then only by showing blood-vessels, and so 
forth. 

Q. — Do you think this was one stage of either of these two 
other forms of disease which you have described ? 

A. — I should say it might be an early stage of a form of 
disease which would terminate, perhaps, in separation. That 
is, the lung was undergoing the same change, in limited por- 
tions, which it had undergone in the other specimens, where 
the tissue was separate. 

Q. — You should think, then, one an early, and the other a 
late stage of the disease ? 

A. — It might be. They were entirely different from each 
other. It is possible. 

Q. — By what process can one portion of the tissue of an 
organ become separated from another portion, in the living sys- 
tem ? What is the process of nature which would produce 
that separation ? 

A. — That is done by the absorption of a certain tissue on the 
confines of the diseased and healthy parts. It is a mystery, just 
how it is done; but that is the result. A line of tissue is 
absorbed, really, so that one part is separated from another. 

Q. — Usually, where that process commences, in nature, what 
is the final disposition of nature, relative to the cast-off and 
separated portions ? Does it become absorbed down and cast 
off by absorption, or otherwise ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 183 

A. — That depends entirely upon the tissue separated. If in 
bone, in one way ; if in the soft parts, in another. 

Q. — What is the ordinary way in the soft parts ? 

A. — As I have stated, 1 have seen nothing which was pre- 
cisely like this specimen of which I was speaking. Usually, 
where the part is separated in the soft tissues of the body, it 
becomes gangrenous, and will mostly liquefy. 

Q. — And then is removed by absorption, unless it is situated 
where, by an abscess, it might be absorbed ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; it might be discharged by an abscess, or parts 
of it may be absorbed. 

Q. — Had you been familiar with the appearance of the lungs 
of healthy animals, before making these examinations ? 

A. — No, Sir ; not at all. 

Q. — You never had examined any ? 

A. — No, Sir. 

Q. — What should you think would be the chance of the 
recovery of an animal that contained this detached portion of 
lung, — say, a very considerable portion of one lung ? 

A. — I should think, where large portions were separated, the 
chance would be very small. Nature works, sometimes, in a 
remarkable manner. But I should say, where the disease had 
been extensive, the chance would be very small. 

Q. — Suppose one lung only was affected by it ; do you think 
the chance of recovery very small, then ? 

A. — Human beings may live with one lung — what amounts 
to one lung, or, perhaps, less. 

Q. — But do they not ? 

A.— They do. 

Q. — JHow with the animal creation ? 

A. — I know nothing about them. 

Q. — Do you think a man could do a good day's work, with 
one lung, or a half one ? 

A. — Well, they do a great deal, certainly. 

Q. — Have you ever seen an able-bodied, healthy, hearty man, 
doing a fair day's work as a laborer, that you were aware had 
only one lung ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; I remember one case, in particular, where 
a man died of an acute attack of pleurisy. Just before that, he 
had been employed as a laborer, doing at least hard work, 



184 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

in some manufacturing establishment. Years before, he had 
had an attack of pleurisy, which had absolutely destroyed the 
whole, or almost the whole, of one lung. There was nothing of 
any consequence retained. There had been a remarkable 
change in the chest. It had adapted itself so that there was a 
very dense formation of fibrous tissue between the chest and the 
lung itself, partly filled up by that, and partly by the lung. 

Q. — What should you infer, as a general rule ? 

A. — As a general rule, — that a person with one lung is not 
as well off as a person with two. 

Q. — I suppose it would depend somewhat upon the cause of 
the destruction of the lung — whether done by an acute disease, 
like pleurisy, or a chronic disease, like phthisis ? 

A. — Yery decidedly. 

Q. — The character of the disease would, then, depend very 
essentially upon the constitution of the patient ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — In the case you name, might not the full amount of 
labor which this man performed have had something to do with 
the last attack, which carried him off, — predisposing him to it ? 

A. — I cannot state how that is. I don't see why it should. 

Q. — If he had but one lung left, and had pleurisy in that, 
he would be a little more likely to die ? 

A. — Oh, yes ; but it is a question of predisposition to pleu- 
risy. 

Q. — I refer to the excessive labor as exhausting his vital 
energies ? 

A. — That simply implies a very active interchange between 
the external air and that which passes through the lungs, — and 
pleurisy is external to the lung. 

Q. — Dr. Martin gave it as his opinion, the other day, that 
these cysts indicated unusual activity of the recuperative func- 
tion of nature, in saving the rest of the lung, and restoring to 
health. What do you think about that ? 

A. — I think, certainly, that they indicate a great effort of 
nature to restore. 

Q. — And that, as far as he knew, this was more active in 
the lower class of animals than in man. 

A. — I know nothing about that. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE, 185 

Q. — Upon the whole, in these cases of diseased lungs, what 
conclusion have you come to ? — that they were all affected by 
the same, or different diseases ? 

A. — I could come to no conclusion. I had detached portions 
brought me, of which the appearances were entirely different. 
Any conclusion of mine as to the identity of the disease must 
be based upon information brought to me from outside. I 
could give no opinion, except that the inflammation, which is 
limited in one case, here, might terminate in a separation. 

Evidence of John E. Chaffee. 

Witness. — About sixty days ago, a cow was driven into our 
town, from Brookfield, and she was taken sick, and put up at a 
barn where a gentleman had a cow, and the latter animal was 
exposed, from that Brookfield cow. Fifty days after this cow 
was exposed, it was killed. Dr. Thayer was there from Boston, 
and Mr. Brooks, of Princeton. The cow was examined before 
it was killed ; and after it was killed, Dr. Thayer stated it was 
a marked case of the disease. About twenty days ago, that 
cow went to pasture with other cattle ; and in twenty days, we 
slaughtered another cow, that had marked signs of the disease. 

Q. — Which cow went to pasture with other cattle ? 

A. — The one that was afterwards killed in presence of Dr. 
Thayer. There were other cattle in the pasture. 

"We slaughtered another cow. This cow was examined by 
Dr. Bates, together with Mr. Lincoln, the President of the 
Agricultural Society, and that cow was pronounced by Dr. 
Bates to be diseased. We accordingly had it slaughtered, and 
found that it was diseased — in the first stages, as stated by 
Dr. Bates. 

Q. — What became of the Brookfield cow ? 

A. — It was sold from Brookfield, and went to Pepperell. 
The papers say this cow has been killed in Pepperell. I have 
heard she was diseased, and had been killed. 

The second cow we killed in Hololen. She had symptoms 
of the disease. The first cow did not show any marked symp- 
toms ; but the citizens of the town did not feel satisfied to let 
her remain without satisfying themselves, and they accord- 
ingly had her slaughtered. 

24 



186 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — And she showed no marks ? 

A. — Not outwardly — not particularly. 

Q. — Did she inwardly ? 

A. — She did. One of her lungs was very much diseased. 
Dr. Thayer examined the diseased lung. 

Q. — Was the cow that went to Pepperell sick at Pepperell ? 

A. — She was. That was the reason she was put up at that 
barn. 

Q. — Was she sick when she went to Pepperell ? 

A. — I can't say, Sir. 

Q. — How far is your place from Brookfield ? 

A. — Perhaps twenty miles. 

Many cattle in our town have now been exposed by this 
Holden cow, which took the disease from the Brookfield cow ; 
and the disease now seems to be fast spreading in the town. 

Q. — What evidence is there that it is fast spreading ? 

A. — There have been some symptoms — what the physicians 
call symptoms — of the disease ; and many cattle have been 
exposed from the first cow. 

Q. — What are the symptoms ? 

A. — Symptoms that physiciaus give. I do not profess to 
know, myself; I am not a physician. 

Q. — How do you know there are such symptoms ? 

A. — I take it from physicians who have stated that before 
me. 

Q. — How many cattle were there in the pasture where this 
Holden cow went ? 

A. — I think in the pasture there were six ; but in going to 
pasture, other cattle have been exposed in the roads. 

Q. — Did those six belong to one herd ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Did they merely belong to individuals who keep cows 
in this common pasture ? 

A. — There was one who had three or four cattle ; and there 
were three others, I think. 

Q. — Did they belong to four herds, or to three herds ? 

A. — To four different herds, I think. I don't know that 
there were more than three. 

Q. — Where are, now, those six cattle ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 187 

A. — Two or three of them we keep in barns, and the others 
are where no other cattle can get to them. ' 

Q. — They are, then, isolated ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Do you know of any other cattle except those six ? 

A. — I have not seen them, myself. It has been reported to 
us that there are other cattle that have been exposed, by way of 
oxen that were in teams, passing in the road. And I was in- 
formed that in two different herds there are cattle that have 
showed the symptoms. 

Q. — You mean, they were exposed by being in teams, on the 
road, when these cattle were passing them ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. And those herds have showed symptoms of 
the disease. 

Q. — Are you one of the selectmen ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Did these reports come to you as selectman ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Did they come from an accredited source ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — When did these reports come ? 
. A. — Yesterday. 

Q.— How did they come ? 

A. — The owners of the herds came and reported them. 

Q. — Had they taken means to isolate them ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, they had. 

There seems to be, on the contrary, on the part of many 
people of our town, a disposition, rather than to isolate their 
cattle, or keep them at home, to let them go at large. On the 
Sabbath day, one or two herds were running at large in the 
roads, and one of the herds that had been exposed to the first 
cow. 

Q. — Why was that done ? 

A. — The gentleman who owned them thought there was no 
danger, and made light of it when we tried to persuade him to 
keep them enclosed. Yesterday, he concluded it was best to 
keep them enclosed, and has determined to do so. 

Q. — Did he not believe the disease was contagious ? 

A. — Not until two or three days ago. 



188 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — Did he think there was any disease ? 

A. — He did not have much faith in it. 

Q. — He did not know his cattle were sick ? 

.4. — No, Sir. Two days ago, his cattle were exposed to the 
diseased cattle. The sick cows were in the yard, and two or 
three of them came together. There was a fence between 
them. 

Yesterday, a foreigner was determined to drive a creature 
through the town, and came through this part of the town 
where this disease is, resolved to go through to an adjoining 
town. We had to use considerable effort to prevent his going. 
He finally consented not to go. He threatened to go last night. 

Q. — How many cattle do you consider have been exposed, in 
and about Holdcn ? 

A. — I cannot tell, exactly. Perhaps there may be fifty, or 
more. • 

Q. — How many are reported as having been exposed ? 

A. — From the first cow ? We think there may, perhaps, be 
a dozen of them. 

Q. — Do you mean, the first cow killed, or the Pepperell 
cow ? 

A. — I mean the first cow we killed, — the Holden cow. And 
if the other cattle were capable of giving the disease, many 
others have been exposed. 

Q. — How extensive are the reports upon the subject, so far 
as they are authentic ? How many are reported to have been 
exposed ? 

A. — I should not be able to say. 

Q. — Did this Holden cow stand in the barn with the West 
Brookfield cow ? 

A— It did, Sir. 

Q. — How long were they there together ? 

A. — One night. They stood about ten or twelve feet apart, 
with three or four partitions, like horse-stalls, between them. 

Q. — Did the stalls cover up the whole room ? 

A. — No, Sir. About like horse-stalls, — partial partitions. 

Q. — How much territory do you think Ifts been exposed ? 

A. — From two to three miles, one way. 
-On one road ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 189 

A. — Nearly all. Very near one road. It extends to the 
line of Princeton. We bad no power with us to use any efforts 
or means to stop the spread of the disease. 

Q. — Do you believe that isolation could be effected perfectly? 
Can the people be trusted ? 

A. — I should think not, Sir. We should hardly know where 
to commence. 

Q. — Could it not be done, if you had the power ? 

A. — I don't know but it could ; but we should hardly know 
where to commence. 

Q. — Commence where you find it. 

A. — We should hardly know where to leave off, then. 

Q. — The cow you speak of, from Brookfield, was not kept at 
Holden, at all ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Taken to Fepperell, by a man who bought it in Pep- 
perell ? 

A. — I understand so. 

Q. — Merely stopped over night ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — What would you like to have the power to do ? 

A. — We would like to have some power given to the town, or 
selectmen, that, so far as we may be able, we might stop the 
spread of the disease, and keep it from going out of town, or 
prevent it from coming into town. 

Q. — What particular things do you advise you should be 
authorized to do? 

A. — We hardly know, Sir, what to advise. We would like 
some speedy action. 

Q. — Does any thing but killing or isolation suggest itself to 
you? 

A. — I don't know that there is, for this disease. We want 
to know how to prevent its going further. 

Evidence of John Brooks. 

Witness. — I was selected by the Commissioners, and went 
the fifth day of May to visit Pepperell, and trace back the 
Brookfield cow to her starting from Brookfield. I found that 
on the tenth day of April she travelled to Holden, and stayed 



1 90 PLEURO-PNEUMONI A. 

there over night. She was tied up in a barn with a cow in 
Holden, belonging to Benjamin Dyke. 

Q. — Only one creature ? 

A. — There were two creatures, but one was only a calf. The 
distance she stood from Mr. Dyke's cow was about twelve or 
fourteen feet. The intervening space was occupied by two 
horse-stalls, involving a necessity of two partitions, — the air 
circulating freely around those partitions. She then, on the 
eleventh, in the morning, started for Pepperell, and was found 
to be fatigued and giving out ; and the man stopped her at 
North Lancaster, at Mr. Sabin Woodbury's house, put her in 
an open shed, and she stood there two nights and one day. 
The floor she had was rough, and was five or six feet below the 
sill of a barn where a cow stood belonging to Mr. Woodbury, 
about forty or fifty feet distance from this diseased cow. She 
stood there two nights and one day. The cow was killed on 
the twenty-fifth day of May. 

Q. — Did she go to Pepperell when she next started ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; she next went to Pepperell, to Mr. Wood's. 
We killed her, and found her diseased. We went back to Mr. 
Sabin Woodbury's, examined his cow, found that she had the 
disease, put an injunction upon her, and left her, till last 
Thursday. We went to Mr. Dyke's, and could discover no 
symptoms of disease in his cow, at the time, and left her, put- 
ting an injunction upon her. A few days afterwards, there was 
some alarm, and the Commissioners directed me to go to Lan- 
caster, and slaughter Mr. Woodbury's cow. They were much 
alarmed at Lancaster, and wanted to know as to the facts of 
the case. I got a contract with the selectmen to pay Mr. 
Woodbury, as at Pepperell, and to wait for the reimbursement 
of the town for the next legislative session, — if they ever got 
any. We found the cow partially diseased. There were 
marks of the disease, Dr. Thayer thought, but not very fully 
developed. 

On Thursday afternoon, I went to Holden, and destroyed that 
cow there. She was very considerably diseased. The people 
of Holden became alarmed ; and we went through the same 
process, — killing Mr. Dyke's cow, and they agreeing to wait 
until the legislature should pay the town or not, as they saw 
fit. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 191 

That was the history of the Brookfield cow and her exposure 
to other cows. 

There were three or four other cows, when I went to Holden, 
in the pasture with the Dyke cow. She appeared so well, I 
thought it unnecessary to take any precautions with her, then. 

The calf that stood in the barn with the Holden cow was 
killed, but did not appear to be diseased at all. 

Q. — How near did the cow at Lancaster stand ? 

A. — From thirty to forty feet, and six feet above, and inside 
the barn. That seems to prove the fact which the Commis- 
sioners have observed, — that the nearer an animal stands to the 
diseased creature, the more likely it will be to take the disease, 
and the more violently. I think that is the fact observed in 
Europe, that the cow standing nearer the diseased animal had 
it more violently than the one further off. And this was the 
case at Lancaster. 

Q. — That was not the testimony of Dr. Wood. 

A. — That was, I believe, the testimony of Dr. Thayer ; and 
I believed it to be the testimony of all the physicians. 

Q. — Did this Holden cow exhibit external marks of the 
disease ? 

A. — Not so directly. There were external marks. She, 
drooled a little, and stood with her legs rather wide apart, and 
seemed to be reluctant to walk — walked as if confined in the 
shoulders, or as if she had a soreness in the chest. There were 
no short breathings. Dr. Thayer, however, could state it better. 
than I could. The cow did give marks of drooling, and a little 
running at the eyes. 

Q. — She was so free from disease as to make it right and, 
equitable that her value should be paid for ? 

A. — That is what the doctor thought. He could not dis- 
cover, at first, positive marks of disease in the cow ; but, after 
killing her, there appeared extensive marks of disease in her. 

Q. — How with the Lancaster cow ? 

A. — She showed marks of disease by short breathing. Her 
respirations were twenty-two or twenty-four. Her breathing 
was short, and she evidently had disease of the lungs. Dr. 
Thayer will give you the autopsy of the cow, better than I can. 

Q. — How long was it, after the Lancaster cow was exposed, 
before she was killed. 



19'2 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — She was exposed on the 11th day of April, and last 
Thursday she was killed. She was driven from Brook field on 
the 10th, from Holden to Lancaster on the 11th. That com- 
menced her exposure at Mr. Woodbury's, and she stayed there 
one day and two nights. 

Q. — The cow was bought in Brookfield ? 

A. — Bought in Brookfield by Mr. Wood. There are two 
brothers of that name, one in Brookfield and one in Pepperell ; 
and the one in Brookfield sold this cow to his brother in Pep- 
perell. 

Q. — Did he know that the cow was exposed ? 

A. — I suppose so ; for he wrote to his brother that it had 
been exposed, and that he had better take care. 

Q.— Did he know it at the time ? 

A. — No ; he did not know it at the time. That cow at Pep- 
perell exposed some other animals, and we have not yet heard 
whether or not they have been sick. 

Q. — You say he did not know at the time, that this cow had 
been exposed in West Brookfield. Had not the disease prevailed ? 

A. — I believe it had prevailed. It had prevailed in North 
Brookfield. I don't know as to that, however ; I speak from 
remembrance. 

Q. — Had there been cases at North Brookfield ? 

A. — I suppose so ; I know nothing of the faGt. 

Q. — Then you do not know that even the Pepperell cow had 
been exposed before leaving Brookfield ? 

A. — I know nothing about it except from hearsay, that the 
cow came from Mr. Wood's, in Brookfield, and was afterwards 
destroyed. 

Q. — At the time the cow was sold, no one knew that it had 
been exposed ? 

A. — I don't know, Sir. 

Q. — You don't know that it had been exposed at all ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I don't know it. I suppose there is no doubt 
about it. 

Q. — Has there been, to your knowledge, any disposition on 
the part of persons owning cattle that have been exposed, to 
sell them and get rid of them ? 

A. — No, Sir; there has not any such disposition, to my 
knowledge. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 193 

Q. — Have you attended, Mr. Brooks, many of these examin- 
ations and appraisals of cattle that have been made ? 
A. — No, Sir ; only three — those I have named. 

Evidence of Dr. E. F. Thayer, {recalled.) 

Mr. Bird. — You examined this Lancaster cow ? 

A.— I did. 

Q. — What were the indications of disease at the autopsy ? 

A. — I could not decide it to be a decided case of disease. 
There was some slight abnormal appearance of the lungs, but 
not sufficient to decide it a decided case. 

Q. — What were the indications before death ? 

A. — The respirations were twenty- three a minute, and evi- 
dently, on the right side, were tubular. 

Q. — What were the external indications ? 

A. — The external indications were that she was healthy, 
but I expected to find some disease of the lungs. 

Q. — Any enlargement of the lungs ? 

A — The lungs were a little enlarged. 

Q. — Do you know how long she had been exposed ? 

A. — The report was that she was left there on the 11th of 
April over night, in a shed : not put into the barn at all. It was 
said, at one time, that she had drank out of a bucket used by 
the cattle there, but I don't think that could readily convey the 
disease. Two months previous, parturition had taken place j 
she had a hard time, and had been feeble ever since. The 
first time I was there, she was worse than when I saw her the 
second time ; she was then evidently improving. There were 
only a few days between the visits. 

Q. — What was the appearance of the heart ? 

A. — It was flabby and flaccid. 

Q. — You do not pronounce it a case of the disease ? 

A— -No, Sir. 

Dr. Loring. — You did so regard it, before she was killed ? 
A. — I expected to find it so. 
Q. — You found somewhat the same symptoms ? 
A. — Somewhat the same. 

Q. — Did you not consider, from the symptoms, that this was 
probably the disease ? 

25 



194 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A— I did, Sir. 

Q. — Under these circumstances, — if you knew an animal had 
been exposed to this disease called pleuro-pneumonia, if you 
were satisfied of it, by your own observation, and you after- 
wards found disease in the lungs, both by physical signs before 
death, or by autopsy, of course after death, would you not 
infer that the disease in the cow was pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I should, of course. 

Mr. Wentworth. — You would not infer it, unless the facts 
warranted it ? 

A. — That was what he [Dr. Loring] said. 

Dr. Loring. — I meant to ask, if you know that an animal 
has been exposed to pleuro-pneumonia, and you find it a difficult 
case to examine before death, and the autopsy is not precisely 
satisfactory, but, at the same time, there is disease of the 
lungs, whether you would not infer that that disease, — hidden, 
concealed as it was, — was pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A — From my knowledge of the character of the disease, I 
certainly should, so insidious is it in its character. 

Dr. Choate. — I wish to ask if the symptoms and appear- 
ances in that case, both before and after the autopsy, were not 
such as you would expect to find in a case of the commence- 
ment of pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — There was an absence of something that I expected to 
find? 

Q. — But so far as they went ? 

A. — So far as they went, they were. There was some slight 
appearance of what I was fearful might be the disease, yet I 
could not pronounce it decidedly so. I would state the fact, 
that the inter-lobular tissue had a slightly marbled appearance, 
and this I regard as a true indication of the disease. 

Q — Did you weigh the lungs ? 

A. — Yes ; they were light. 

Q. — Do you believe that that was a case of the disease called 
pleuro-pneumonia, derived from contagion ? 

A.— In my report, I have stated that it was unsatisfactory ; 
that I could not decide it to be so \ but that the appearances 
presented by the post mortem examination might be accounted 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 195 

for by the feeble condition of the animal. I cannot state it 
any more decidedly. 

Q. — Where is your report? 

A. — It is in the office of the Secretary of the Board of 
Agriculture. 

Q. — What appearances did you observe on the slaughter of 
the Holliston cow, last week? 

A. — On removing the left lung, several spots of red hepatiza- 
tion appeared; also, a slight hypertrophy, or enlargement, of 
that lung. We removed the right lung, and found it consider- 
ably enlarged, and the middle and inferior portions were 
studded with red spots of hepatization — a very marked case. 

As some questions have been asked in reference to her ap- 
pearance before death, I will state, that on my arrival there, the 
animal was in the road, and there were a very large number of 
people present. She was driven into the barn, but I was 
unable to make any satisfactory examination. She appeared 
decidedly excited, and I could not take her respirations at all. 
They were not regular. She would turn to one man and 
another and snuff, and turn to me and snuff. I could not get 
a decidedly regular breathing. There was slight tubular res- 
piration in a portion of the right lung, but I accounted for that 
on the ground of her excitement. The sound of the air going- 
through the bronchial tubes was greater than you would 
naturally expect in an animal when in a quiet state. I could 
not form the opinion that she was diseased, and I hoped, from 
the appearance of the stable, — two or three stalls intervening 
between the animals, a distance of some ten feet, — that she 
would not be diseased. Three physicians were present, and 
examined the case with me. 

We afterwards went to a farm where a cow had died, and 
the owner, fearful that it might be reported that his herd was 
affected with this disease, came for me to go and examine the 
case. I found the animal lying on the sternum and abdomen, 
against a partition. On opening the abdomen, there was no 
appearance of disease ; but on opening the uterus, a very large 
quantity of fluid — an unusual quantity — ran out; the fetus 
appeared to have been dead for many days ; the skin puffed up 
to its utmost capacity by the disengagement of gas from the 
fluids, and perhaps the solids. I then took out the lungs, 



196 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

and although, from the position in which the cow laid, there 
was congestion of the blood, yet the appearance was so markedly 
different from the other case, that the physicians were satisfied 
that there was a difference between the disease in the one case 
and in the other. They were satisfied that the first animal 
was quite extensively diseased. 

Mr. Lathrop then stated that Mr. Chenery, being the unfor- 
tunate man who imported the stock which brought this disease, 
and having had the most experience in regard to it, would give 
his opinion as to the best way of extirpating it. 

Mr. Chenery. — I have a very decided opinion about it ; per- 
haps not well founded, but founded upon my own experience, 
mainly, and upon the evidence I have heard here. My opinion 
is, that the best way is to slaughter every herd that is known 
to have diseased animals in it, at once, and to isolate thor- 
oughly all those herds that are suspected, but not known to 
have diseased animals among them. 

Q. — That is, those that have been exposed ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; that have been "exposed;" that is the term 
that seems to be used here. 

Q — What would you do with those herds that you knew 
had been exposed ? 

A. — I would slaughter the herds in which there were known 
to be diseased animals. 

Q. — Then you would slaughter indiscriminately a whole 
herd, if there was one diseased animal in it? 

A. — I would, decidedly. I don't see what use it would be 
to slaughter one. 

Q. — Have you not got an animal that has not been diseased ? 
Do you want to kill him ? 

A. — I do not want to kill him. My opinion was asked, and 
I gave it, without reference to myself. 

Q — Would you think it good policy to kill cattle that were 
isolated before they exhibited any symptoms of the disease ? 
Why not wait until they showed symptoms ? 

A. — I would isolate herds that are suspected to have the 
disease, and if any animal became diseased, I would kill the 
whole herd. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 197 

Q. — Notwithstanding you know, from your own experience, 
that some animals do not take the disease ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Do you not think that we owe it to ourselves and to 
the world to examine into the disease, and see whether it 
cannot be cured ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; I think that would be well. 

Q. — How would you do that, without isolating and watching 
the animals ? 

A. — I would do it by obtaining an island, if possible, and 
putting a diseased herd upon it, and introducing, from time to 
time, well cattle among them. 

A. — For the purposes of experiment, I understand you to say 
that you would recommend procuring an island ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Would it be wise ever to let the cattle off the island? 

A. — I should think that an experiment that did not extend 
over one or more years would not be satisfactory. 

Q. — I suppose it would be satisfactory when it was ascer- 
tained that the disease could be cured ? 

A. — Yes, Sir; but I don't think it could be ascertained 
under a year or two, from the experience I have had. If the 
cow that went from my herd to Maiden carried the disease 
seven months, it seems to me that is conclusive. 

Q. — But suppose you ascertain that you can cure the disease, 
then the experiment would have succeeded, would it not ? — you 
would not continue the isolation then ? 

A. — No, Sir ; but, as I said, I think it would take a year or 
more to ascertain that fact. 

Q. — How many cattle out of a hundred would be worth 
curing, if that length of time were required ? 

A. — I don't'know. 

Q. — Would not the risk from attempting to isolate them, 
from the danger of their breaking out, <fec, be such as to ren- 
der it safer to destroy them ? 

A. — I think it would. 

Q. — Taking the view you have expressed, what value do you 
put upon your cattle ? 

A. — I am not prepared to answer that question. 



198 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — If you could have your way, would you allow any ani- 
mals to come from the island that might have recovered, while 
any diseased animals were upon it ? 

A. — No, Sir. I suppose the isolation to be for the purpose 
of experiment, not to save the animals. 

Evidence of Dr. Samuel A. Green, of Boston. 

Mr. Andrew. — Have you made any investigations in refer- 
ence to this disease ? 

A. — I have made such investigations as I could from books, 
but have not had an opportunity to see a diseased animal : 
I have seen several specimens of the lung. 

Q. — How many specimens of the lung have you seen ? 

JL— Three. 

Q — Were they all alike, or did they represent the disease 
in different stages of its progress ? 

A. — I should think at different stages of progress, although 
they had been soaked in alcohol, — all of them, — which rendered 
them not so good specimens as they would have been if they 
had been more fresh. 

Q — Could you ascertain if they were morbid specimens, 
with what disease the animal was afflicted in its lifetime ? 

A. — They were morbid specimens ; more than that I cannot 
say. 

Q. — Not distinct and clear enough to enable you to form an 
opinion ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — You have stated that you have examined this subject 
in books. How extensively is this subject of malignant pleuro- 
pneumonia treated in books ? 

A. — As far as I can judge, the accounts are exceedingly 
meagre, and very much scattered. 

Q. — Both as regards the Continental and English ? 

A — I have seen some French books, but mostly English. I 
would state that it is a subject that I looked into more for my 
own gratification than any thing else; I never dreamed of being 
called upon until this morning. It is something that I have 
had but very little conversation about with others. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 199 

Q. — Is there any treatise on the subject, or is all that is to 
be found in scattered leaves ? 

A. — It is in scattered leaves, and by persons who entertained 
different views. 

Q. — Is this the fact, Doctor ? — that as yet no theory touch- 
ing the origin, progress, history and treatment of the disease 
has been agreed upon by men of science ? 

A. — I should say so, from what I know. 

Q. — Have the French writers decided in regard to the cura- 
bility of the disease ? 

A. — I don't think they advance any very definite opinion in 
regard to it. 

Q. — Have you examined several different authorities both 
in English and in French ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Have any of them treated the subject of inoculation ? 

A. — That has been mentioned. 

Q. — Do they agree upon that ? 

A. — I cannot say, Sir. 

Q — As to the contagiousness of the disease, what is known 
and decided ? 

A, — I should judge that to be an open question, on the 
authorities. I think Dr. Livingstone speaks of it in his African 
Expedition, and although it is some time since I looked at it, I 
think he does not agree to its contagiousness. I think, how- 
ever, that his account refers to cases where horses and mules 
were affected — not neat cattle. 

Q. — What part of Africa did he find it in ? 

A. — I cannot state, Sir. I think he considers it an epidemic. 

Q. — As among horses ? 

X— Yes. 

Q. — This disease has prevailed on the banks of the Thames, 
has it not? 

A, — It has prevailed in England. I cannot say about the 
banks of the Thames. 

Q. — Is there any substantial agreement among English 
writers upon the subject ? 

A. — I should think there was great diversity of opinion. 

Q. — As to curability and contagiousness ? 



200 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — Yes, Sir; and as to the percentage of mortality, I found 
different accounts. 

Q — How widely do they differ as to the percentage of 
mortality ? 

A. — I think I have seen statements of over fifty per cent, 
recovering, and then, again, I have seen it stated at a very low 
rate. If I had had any thought that I should be called upon, 
I should have refreshed my memory, but it is something I have 
not looked into, to any great extent, since last winter, when 
the disease first made its appearance. 

Mr. Bird. — Upon the whole, doctor, from what you know 
and have read, and from what you know of the facts in regard 
to the disease in this country, what should you recommend as 
the best course to be pursued? 

A. — It is very difficult to say. There is considerable prima 
facie evidence of its contagiousness, but, then again, I don't 
think the proof is conclusive. 

Q. — Contagious or not (that being an open question), should 
you recommend killing or isolation ? 

A. — I should not recommend killing, rather isolation. 

Q. — What extent of neutral ground should be preserved 
between diseased cattle, and cattle in contiguous regions that 
are considered healthy ? 

A. — I should want to know more of the details of the dis- 
ease, before I answered that question. 

Q — What is the general law of diseases known to be con- 
tagious, or infectious, as to distance ? 

A. — Under ordinary circumstances, I should not think it 
would be a great distance. 

Q. — What is "a great distance " ? — a rod, ten rods, or half 
a mile ? 

A. — I think it would be safe to call it half a mile, although 
I have no idea that it would be carried through the atmosphere 
to any thing like that extent, to be contagious. 

Q. — Do you know of any well-authenticated case of disease 
that went that distance, or any where near it ? 

A— No, Sir. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 201 

Dr. Loring. — Did you subject the specimens of lung which 
you saw to any very accurate examination ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Could you tell whether you had ever seen similar speci- 
mens coming from the human subject ? 

A. — These had been soaked in alcohol, and had become very 
much hardened, indurated, and in that respect they differed 
from the specimens I have seen from the human subject. 

Q. — Those have been recent specimens ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q,— Are you aware to what extent this disease has been in- 
vestigated by competent persons in Europe ? 

A. — No, Sir. 

Q. — Have you ever read the statement of Dr. Willems, of 
Belgium ? 

A. — I have not read the original, but I have seen extracts 
from it. 

Q. — Have you ever seen the reports of the Scientific Com- 
mission appointed by the Minister of Agriculture in France ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Have you read the account of the examination of Prof. 
Simonds by a Committee of Parliament ? 

A.— No, Sir. 

Q. — Have you ever read, in the transactions of the Royal 
Society, an elaborate essay upon inoculation ? 

A. — I have seen it, but I cannot say that I have read it. I 
have glanced over it. 

Q. — Are you aware of the history of the disease in Den- 
mark, as it has been explored there ? 

A. — I have seen accounts of it. 

Mr. Charles L. Flint, Secretary of the State Board of Agri- 
culture, was asked what his sources of information had been, 
and to give his views in regard to the matter, and said : — 

I am in the constant receipt, officially, of a great many of the 
highest scientific and agricultural journals published in Europe : 
The Journal oV Agriculture Pratique, of France — considered one 
of the best — The Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, and 
The Farmers' Magazine, London, — The Journal of the High- 

26 



202 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

land and Agricultural Society, Scotland, &c. ; and I have also 
had frequent exchanges with the French government, receiving 
from them official documents and papers in regard to public 
investigations ; and when this disease was first made public, of 
course my attention and interest were excited and attracted to 
the subject in a degree which they had never been before. I 
have informed myself so far as I have been able, with regard to 
its nature, with Tegard to its history in Europe, and I have also 
been with the Commissioners through all their earlier investi- 
gations, spending several days in North Brookfield and New 
Brain tree. 

Q. — Where did the disease originate, according to the 
accounts ? 

A.— There is a difference of opinion whether it can be con- 
nected, directly, with what is called the " steppe-murrain," 
which originally came up from Tartary to Italy, &c, or whether 
it is a specific disease, which originated in Europe, of a com- 
paratively recent date ; but this fact is established, that it was 
for a considerable time centred in Piedmont, round the Jura 
mountains, from which, about 1840, it began to spread down 
upon the lower countries of France, Belgium and Holland. In 
1840 Dr. Delafond, a distinguished veterinary surgeon con- 
nected with the veterinary school of Alfort, was sent into the 
Seine Inferieure, one of the departments of France, where the 
disease had manifested itself, and after 1840 he was commis- 
sioned for several successive years to go into different depart- 
ments, to investigate and struggle against this disease. The 
conclusion to which he arrived, and which is expressed in a 
recent work on the Dairy Cow, by a celebrated French author, 
is, that after the first stage it is incurable. It is generally 
admitted, as far as I am informed, by veterinarians and practical 
men, that after the first stage it is incurable. 

Q. — What is the first stage ? 

A. — The period of incubation, commencing with exposure. 
The disease has been properly described by gentlemen here as 
a very insidious and stealthy one. The first stage is of course 
very obscure. The disease is almost universally admitted 
among practical men in Europe to be contagious. The length 
of time that should be considered the first stage, is somewhat 
unsettled. I do not think the limits of it have been or could 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 203 

be fully defined, but in general, it might be called the period 
of incubation, which lasts perhaps from two to four weeks, 
and then is followed by what might be called the inflammatory 
stage. The next stage is where it gets hold of the organs and. 
produces some disorganization. The symptoms in the first 
stage are very obscure ; they are so obscure that they might 
not be detected even by a very careful scientific examination ; 
and cases have come within my own observation where the dis- 
ease must have lingered upon the animal several months before 
it was at all suspected or perceived by the owners, but upon 
careful examination by a veterinary surgeon, (and I have 
assisted in such examinations in many cases,) the lungs would 
be found decidedly diseased ; and in nearly every case the post 
mortem has verified the previous examination. I suppose that 
the only curable stage is the first, or inflammatory one, and 
that practically it is incurable. Preventive measures are the 
truly effective ones. 

Q. — It is not merely functional, but organ ical ? 

A. — Organic, it appears to me, after the first or inflammatory 
stage. I have no interest or feeling in the matter, except to 
have the truth and the facts made known, and I am so con- 
firmed in my own opinion from having read the reports upon 
the disease, and from having followed it up in its details, 
that I am anxious that efficient and prompt measures should be 
taken in regard to it. 

Q. — How are your impressions in regard to its being con- 
tagious and not epidemic ? 

A. — My opinion is perfectly settled. I may say that I know 
that it is contagious ; and I have no idea that it is epidemic. 
That is the almost universal opinion among scientific and prac- 
tical men in Europe, and the editors of agricultural journals. 
The North British Agriculturist has recently come out with 
an article on the local signs of the disease, as they have appeared 
here, and has taken up the details here of the cases where it 
has been carried from Belmont to North Brookfield, and has 
given that as an instance to prove conclusively that the disease 
is contagious. There was, on its first appearance, a difference 
of opinion in. the minds of some as to its contagious character. 

Q. — In your observation or reading, have you been convinced 
in regard to any preventive that can be administered, after 
exposure, before disease has taken place ? 



204 PLEUHO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — No, Sir ; I have not. I, of course, have heard Mr. 
Lindley, (who was early introduced to me by Dr. Anderson,) 
as to the results of inoculation ; but on that point I had been 
previously informed by the reports of Dr. Willems, who dis- 
covered that process ; since the disease has raged here, many 
have came to me with specifics, which they considered effective; 
but, as one of the Commissioners has said, [Dr. Loring,] their 
character was so apparent that I did not think the Committee 
would look at them. 

Q. — Did they allow you to analyze the medicinfes ? 

A. — No, Sir ; they kept them a profound secret, because they 
expected to make a great deal of money by them. One went 
so far as to say, that the Yeterinary School of Berlin had not 
discovered his cure, although they had investigated the disease 
in every possible way. 

Q. — Is there any systematic treatise on this subject, extant ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I think not. There is, as Dr. Green remarked, 
a great deal of information scattered all through the different 
medical and scientific journals on this subject, but it is in an 
exceedingly fragmentary form. In the Journal of the Royal 
Agricultural Society, there are several elaborate, complete, and 
full papers, illustrating the condition of the lungs in different 
stages, compared with healthy lungs. These I have in my 
office, but I do not think the information has ever been collected 
together. There is a small popular treatise on it by M' Gillavray. 

Q. — Has there ever been, any where in the world, any 
thorough and systematic treatment of the disease, under the 
direction of learned men, who had the power to do what was 
necessary to be done, in order to subject healthy animals to the 
contagion, and unhealthy animals to scientific treatment, for the 
purpose of cure ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. There was a commission established by the Bel- 
gian government and by the government of France, and I think 
by the Dutch government also, for the purpose of investigating 
and treating the disease by way of inoculation. That has been 
thoroughly tried and investigated, by learned, able, and scien- 
tific commissioners, appointed by those governments. The 
reports of those commissioners, or extracts from them, are to 
be found in the London Veterinarian, and other works, and 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 205 

the results, as you have all heard in the testimony here, are 
not satisfactory. 

Q. — Did you hear Mr. Lindley's testimony ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — What do you think of the results in Africa ? 

A. — I have no doubt he stated what is strictly true in regard 
to the results there ; but they are more favorable than have 
been shown in Europe. Whether this is owing to the climate, 
or to the fact that they have tried it on a more extensive scale, 
I cannot say. I showed Mr. Lindley the reports of those com- 
missioners, and after looking over them carefully, he said that 
if they should try inoculation in Africa, under such circum- 
stances, they should not expect any better results. He stated 
to me that they did not expect any good results from inoculat- 
ing animals after they had been exposed any considerable time 
to the infection. Many of the animals used by the Belgian 
commissioners for their experiments were taken from herds 
where the existence of the infection had been known for a 
considerable length of time. 

Mr. Andrew. — Then, supposing it to be a contagious disease, 
inoculation was not tried by those commissioners early enough 
to give it an opportunity to gain a start upon the infection ? 

A. — That is what I understand to be the opinion of Mr. 
Lindley. 

Q. — Then, so far as that is concerned, it has not been 
thoroughly and scientifically tried in Europe ? 

A. — I think, myself, it has been pretty thoroughly tried. 
Although Mr. Willems, the discoverer, has met with a great deal 
of opposition, and it has not, perhaps, been tried so thoroughly 
and completely as it ought to have been, still, it has been pretty 
thoroughly tried — there is no doubt about it. In those cases 
where the cattle have never been exposed, the result has been 
perhaps, more favorable in Europe ; still, there has been a con- 
siderable percentage of loss by inoculation, — so great, perhaps, 
that it would not be thought expedient to try it here. 

Q. — Should you expect any good results from inoculation, 
after the disease had made its appearance, any more than from 
vaccination after smallpox had commenced ? 



206 PLECJRO-PXEUMONIA. 

A. — No, Sir. But I do not understand that to be exactly 
the case. After infection had been known to be in a herd, 
animals were taken from such a herd and inoculated, with 
those results. 

A Member. — Vaccination will prevent the smallpox after 
exposure. 

Witness. — That is because the operation of the virus is more 
rapid than the progress of the disease itself, and such is the 
case in inoculation if performed immediately after exposure. 

Q. — Would it not be wise to try that, among other remedial 
means, in case of the isolation of animals ? 

A. — Well, Sir ; this disease is so well known to be very 
dangerous and fatal that I should not be in favor of tampering 
with it, except by way of abstract scientific investigation. 
Every sensible man would aduiit the importance of that. 
Practically, I do not think the results would be of any value. 
In an abstractly scientific point of view they might be interest- 
ing and valuable. 

Q. — According to Mr. Lindley, a large per cent, of animals 
were saved in Africa. 

A. — Yes, Sir ; no doubt. 

Q. — What is now the course of treatment adopted in Europe 
for the first stages ? 

A. — Well, Sir, in many cases, they destroy the animals 
entirely. That course was taken a few years ago by the Belgian 
government, and they succeeded in completely eradicating the 
disease. It was introduced again by an importation from Hol- 
land, and they still have it. In England, the location and 
manner of keeping cattle is so much more isolated than on our 
small farms here, that the disease is not so likely to spread there 
as with us, where every body is continually trading and exchang- 
ing stock. It is spread there by the fairs and markets. 

Q. — But they have the disease in England ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; it was introduced in 1841. 

Q. — Now, if the disease appears in an English gentleman's 
herd and the herd is large and isolated, what does he do upon 
its first appearance ? 

A. — I know that in some cases they have destroyed their 
herds, in others treatment has been resorted to. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 207 

Q. — I want to ascertain if experiment, in England, has led, 
at last, to any substantial agreement as to the treatment of the 
disease, when it appears in their herds ? 

A. — I do not think that there is any uniform mode of treat- 
ment among individuals, but in some cases within my knowl- 
edge, when animals have been taken sick, the healthy animals 
have been immediately removed from them, and the effort has 
been made to keep them completely isolated. The diseased 
ones are ordinarily knocked in the head, as not being worth 
curing. In mild cases, however, they are fattened for beef. 

Q. — Have you a distinct recollection of many places where 
the disease appeared and has been annihilated by killing ? 

A. — It was annihilated entirely in a part of Switzerland, 
twenty years ago, by precisely this course, and also in Belgium, 
and in some other localities. 

Q. — How long did it take to annihilate it by the destruction 
of the animals ? 

A. — I cannot tell you. It would depend entirely upon the 
number of animals that had been exposed. 

Q. — You cannot tell how long it took, either in Switzerland 
or Belgium ? 

A —No, Sir. 

Q. — You say that this disease has existed in England twenty 
years, and still continues. Can you tell the reason why the 
cattle have not all been swept off? 

A. — Because they are isolated, and kept away from the con- 
tagion. 

Q. — What is to prevent the herds from being exterminated, 
when it appears among them ? 

A. — I think there are few cases where it has appeared in 
which they have not been exterminated. I do not know of 
any. It is given up as an incurable disease, or, supposing it 
could be apparently cured, it would be of little practical value 
because it is admitted that it can never be perfectly cured. 
The disease lingers on for a long time in a latent or chronic 
state, ready to break out upon the occurrence of any exciting 
cause. 

Q. — Do you know of any system of treatment that has been 
adopted ? 



208 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — As I remarked before, I do not think there is any uni- 
form system of treatment. 

Q. — So far as you can see, then, men are indebted to Divine 
Providence, rather than to any skill of their own in treating it ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. As I have before stated, the first or inflam- 
matory stage may be susceptible of control, but afterwards, I 
think they would be dependent upon a special Providence for 
any good result. 

Q. — What is the treatment used in Europe ? 

A. — A part is dietetic. I cannot give the detail, but in the 
inflammatory stage bleeding is often resorted to, counter-irri- 
tants, &c. Other remedies have been recommended by veteri- 
nary surgeons. 

Q. — Have there not been some herds in England in which 
the disease instead of being destroyed by the knife, has been 
checked, or put an end to, by some sort of remedial treatment ? 

A. — That I cannot tell. I do not know whether it is so or 
not, but I know that comparatively few cases of actual pleuro- 
pneumonia ever recover there under treatment. 

Q. — Do you know whether any herds have been voluntarily 
extirpated by their owners, to put an end to the disease ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; such cases are reported in the British 
journals. 

Q. — What good does that do to the rest of mankind, if the 
English herds are so isolated that the disease would not be 
communicated from one man's herd to another's ? Is it not 
much like cutting off a man's head to save his life ? 

A. — It is ordinarily recognized as a fact in Europe, that if 
the disease has got hold of a herd, it is as good as destroyed. 
I think that is the result of the good judgment of practical 
men. Some fat and kill them immediately for beef. 

Q. — Would not a small percentage be left? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; but no breeder would be willing to breed from 
animals that had a suspicion of the disease. 

Q. — How many herds do you know of in England that have 
been destroyed, as a means of preventing the extension of 
the disease ? 

A. — I cannot state the number of cases, but I know that in 
some cases the disease swept over considerable territory. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 209 

Q. — Are there any books where the evidence can be found 
marshalled, so that a man could make up a tabular statement 
of the number of herds destroyed by the knife ? 

A. — I do not know. 

Q. — Do you know whether the number destroyed in Switzer- 
land was accurately given ? 

A. — I do not recollect. 

Q. — Is there any place where a man can find the number of 
herds destroyed by the disease where it has appeared, or is 
there any evidence that any one herd was ever destroyed in 
England ? 

A. — Yes. Statements are given m the journal of the Royal 
Agricultural Society. The tone of the journals has been that 
complete destruction, where the disease has got hold of a herd, 
is to be recommended. I know that is the prevailing tone of 
the highest and most authoritative agricultural journals ; but as 
to giving the details of the animals or herds that have died, I 
could not pretend to give them from memory without referring 
to the reports. 

Q. — There is no precise knowledge on the subject ? 

A. — There is, in regard to the investigations, that have taken 
place in England and Scotland and Holland, as definite infor- 
mation as you could expect under the circumstances. All the 
symptoms, the ordinary modes of treatment, that have been 
adopted, the places where herds have been destroyed by order 
of the government, the investigations by the commissioners 
appointed by the Belgium, Dutch, and French governments, — 
all these things are known and before the public, and have been 
for some time. The progress and pathology of the disease are 
also known. 

Q. — I want to know your opinion in regard to the economy 
of a course recommended to be pursued. Suppose isolation 
could save many animals, would the value of the animals, after 
they had been saved, justify the expense ? 

A. — If any animals in the herd that it was proposed to iso- 
late had been decidedly exposed, and diseased, I should say 
not. In further answer to your question, if you will allow me, 
I will make one remark. There is a very common fallacy in 
reasoning from this disease of pleuro-pneumonia in the human 
subject and in cattle. For instance ; we wish to use the butter, 

27 



210 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

the milk, and the cheese, which are the product of these 
animals. Now, it is almost universally admitted, by agricultu- 
rists and practical men, that this disease, even though appar- 
ently cured in an animal that has been attacked, is never in 
fact wholly cured. Now, if a man loses half his lung, as you 
have been told by one of the physicians in this city, he may live 
on; he may do office work; he may go to his counting-room 
and get along with his head work ; but he would never be con- 
sidered a healthy man. He may live along, and perform light 
duties for some years, but he is never considered a healthy man. 
Now, suppose you should save a cow ; upon the same testimony, 
that cow could never be regarded as a healthy cow ; no one 
would be willing to use the milk, the butter, and the cheese, 
that were made from her while alive, or to eat the beef when 
killed, and no sensible man would be willing to use her as a 
breeder. 

Q. — What length of time do you consider would be neces- 
sary to secure the public from the ravages of an animal that 
had the disease in its constitution ? 

A. — Well, Sir, I have not formed any opinion upon that 
point, but I am inclined to agree with Mr. Chenery, and others, 
who have testified upon that point, that it would be a long time 
before it would be safe to allow such an animal to be brought 
among healthy animals — never, so far as my knowledge goes. 

Q. — Would the cattle, if they had been saved, have been 
worth the money that it cost ? 

A. — I think not. 

Mr. Andrew. — What do we know ? 

A. — They know more in Europe than we do. 

Q. — What do they know in Europe V 

A. — I could show you if I had the reports here. The disease 
is very stealthy and insidious, and for all practical purposes is 
incurable. That they know. That is the result of the investi- 
gations of Collot, of Delafond, of Waters, and of Professor 
Simonds, one of the highest agricultural and veterinary writers 
in Europe, selected by the British government to go to the Con- 
tinent and investigate this disease. 

Q. — I want to know whether the result of your observation 
and study, thus far, is not simply this, that in regard to the 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. . 211 

disease called pleuro-pneumonia in cattle, there is a point 
beyond which it is ascertained to be incurable ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, but the point is pretty well ascertained. 

Q. — That is the most you can say ? 

A. — No, Sir ; not the most ; but I should say that you could 
say that, with perfect positiveness. 

Q. — Where that point is you do not know ? 

A. — I do not think any one is competent to define it precisely, 
but for all practical purposes it is well known. 

Q. — But is it also probable, that up to some point, the disease 
is curable ? 

A. — Yes, in the very first stage, the animal's life may be 
saved in some cases. 

Q. — But how for it remains curable is one of the questions 
of science not yet solved ? 

A. — I should hardly say that it was very indefinite, from my 
knowledge of veterinary writers. They say, almost invariably, 
that after the first stage, the symptoms of which are given in 
detail, it is incurable, and that the first stage is so stealthy and 
so insidious, that it is impossible for an ordinary farmer and 
practical man to tell whether an animal had that disease or 
any other ; so that when the animal has passed into the second 
stage, and the symptoms become more marked and positive, the 
disease is incurable. 

Q. — Has any Commission ever tried a hundred animals to 
see whether any of them were curable, in what is called the 
second stage ? 

A. — I do not know whether any one has taken a hundred 
cattle, but I know that a great many cattle have been treated 
in France, and Scotland, and England, and have been treated 
with no favorable result. 

Q. — No recoveries ? 

A. — Recoveries would be rare, complete ones, never. The 
testimony is, that after the inflammatory stage, the disease is 
incurable, and that no favorable results have been obtained. 

Q. — You have no confidence in any remedies ? 

A. — I know that remedies have been used in Europe, such 
as bleeding, in the early stage of the disease ; but the testi- 
mony, so far as I am informed, is that after the early stage, 
bleeding is injurious. 



212 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — What is the success of treatment in the early stages ? 

A — It is somewhat controlled by bleeding, counter-irritants, 
and other remedies. 

Q. — What is your impression, from what you have learned, 
in relation to inoculation — that it produces the same disease ? 

A. — No, Sir ; it is a somewhat similar disease. As I under- 
stand this disease, which we call pleuro-pneumonia, it is a 
disease which attacks the respiratory organs. As I understand, 
inoculation produces a disease in the system of the animal, not 
so directly in the lungs, but a similar disease, which passes all 
through the system. 

Q. — Do you learn that a disease produced by inoculation, 
results fatally itself or that it fails to protect from the true dis- 
ease ? 

A. — I learn that in a considerable number of cases, it pro- 
duces death, but in those cases where it does not, it is the sal- 
vation, almost, of an animal from taking the infection, on going 
into an infected herd. 

Q. — I understand you to express a deep interest in the pro- 
tection of the industrial interests of this country. I want to 
know what your opinion is, in relation to circumscribing the 
infected districts, and preventing ingress and egress of animals ? 

A. — My judgment has been — and I have given the subject a 
great deal of thought and reflection — that among other things 
that ought to be done, in our circumstances here, is to make 
the Connecticut River a boundary on one side, over which no 
animal should be taken, under severe penalties ; and then, per- 
haps, the State line, or the Merrimac River, on the other side. 
Some such stringent legislation is necessary to confine it within 
its present limits. 

Q. — But what would be done with the infected animals ? 

A. — That would be an isolation upon a large scale ; and then 
I should say, that authority might be given to the officers of 
the several towns, to isolate them, and also the herds. But if 
it did not go further, there would be no beneficial result. 
There would be a disposition to tamper with the disease ; you 
would have ignorance, and disbelief, and every thing else to 
contend with ; and even in the ordinary isolation of a herd, 
there would be danger of breaking down the fences, which 
would require very careful watchfulness to guard against. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 213 

Q. — I understand you to say that this disease has been in 
England some twenty years ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — It is there now ? 

A. — It is, as I understand, in some places. I do not under- 
stand it to be generally in England, but it has been known, for 
instance, within the last year, in London, south of the Thames, 
and has carried off a very large per cent, of the cows. It was 
reported in the London Veterinarian, I think, for April, that as 
large a percentage as ninety- five were carried off by this dis- 
ease ; but then, I do not mean to say that it was general over 
England. I understand that the condition of the country is 
such, that there is a sort of natural isolation of farms there, so 
that the stock can be kept separate, and that the herds of cattle 
are kept separate to a great extent ; and also that there has 
been, from time to time, a destruction of herds, where the dis- 
ease has appeared, but yet, the disease has not been extirpated 
from the island. 

Q. — Now, I want to know what reason you have for thinking 
that the same thing cannot be done here, by either or both, of 
those processes ? 

A. — We have a great many instances, some of which have 
been brought to the knowledge of the Committee, where very 
stringent measures have been taken, and have resulted favora- 
bly. Suppose Mr. Chenery had killed his entire herd, instead 
of sending a portion of them to North Brookfield. I suppose 
no one will doubt that the disease would have been extirpated. 
Now we have the same thing on a much larger scale. The 
labor is herculean now, compared with what it would have been 
then. I would remark, that there is, in the method of farming 
adopted in England, greater facilities for isolation, and, as a 
general thing, the animals belonging to large owners, are 
considerably more isolated than ours. 

Dr. Loring. — Do you not know that the legislation in Eng- 
land is considered by farmers and veterinary surgeons, usually 
as insufficient ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — And that, within the very last year, strenuous efforts 
have been made to obtain laws that should be more satisfactory ? 



214 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Are you not aware, that in the examinations before a 
committee of Parliament, repeated statements to that effect 
were made, and that the regulations at present existing in the 
island were deemed insufficient ? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Mr. Andrew. — Don't you know that the landed interest has 
been more powerful than any other in England, ever since the 
Norman conquest? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Then, how do you explain the fact that they have not 
been able to protect themselves ? 

A. — That I cannot say. 

Q. — Is not the answer to be found in this, that they are not 
agreed among themselves ? 

A. — That may be so to some extent ; but they have been 
blocked and obstructed, in various ways. This disease, how- 
ever, is not common over England ; it is only known in certain 
localities, and of course does not arouse the interest of the 
nation as it would if it was more widely spread. 

Q. — Who is the editor of the North British Agriculturist? 

A. — That I cannot state. 

Q. — Was the article to which you referred, editorial or a 
communication ? 

A. — It was editorial. 

Q. — Do you know any thing about his sources of informa- 
tion ? 

A. — Nothing ; only that he speaks as if he knew. 

Q. — Does he not give his sources of information ? 

A — No, Sir ; it is only an ordinary editorial, taking the facts 
in regard to the disease, as shown here, as evidence that it is 
contagious. 

Q. — But you stated that he spoke of tracing the cows from 
Belmont to North Brookneld ; does he not state whether he 
quotes from the newspapers or not ? 

Q. — He quotes from the Country Gentleman. The editor 
commences his article with the words, " we learn from the 
Country Gentleman" &c. 

Q. — What is the Country Gentleman ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 215 

A. — It is one of the most thriving agricultural papers in 
this country. 

Q. — Has the Country Gentleman had any fact which has 
not been brought before this Committee, so far as you know ? 

A. — I am not aware that it has. I think almost all the facts 
have been brought before the Committee. 

Q. — As a matter of fact, the disease still continues in Eng- 
land. Do you know how far it is owing to importation ? 

A. — I don't know whether it is owing to importation in any 
special, particular instance of recent date. 

Mr. Wentworth. — You say that in the first stages of this 
disease, on the European authorities, it is curable ? 

A. — It is supposed to be so. 

Q. — And they give the specified treatment? 

A— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Would it not be advisable, then, to apply that treat- 
ment to cattle that have been exposed, as a precautionary 
measure ? 

A. — It would not be necessary, where cattle have been 
merely exposed. A man would not be willing to have forty 
cattle bled, because they had been within ten feet of a diseased 
animal. 

Q. — Why cannot that treatment be followed up with ex- 
posed cattle ? 

A. — I suppose it might "be ; but I cannot say as to the effect 
of the treating comparatively healthy animals as if they were 
diseased, without knowing the fact. The difficulty is, that the 
disease, in its first stage, is so very insidious that the farmer 
does not know, in one case in a hundred, that his cattle are 
diseased. 

Q. — But take a case of well established exposure ; why not 
treat that ? 

A. — That would be a question for the veterinary surgeon. 
I should not like to try that course with animals simply 
exposed. 

Q. — Would you recommend killing? Which mode would 
you prefer — attempting to cure in this way, or killing ? 

A. — In the case of a herd that had been simply exposed, 
without any disease in it, I should say, isolation was to be pre- 
ferred. I think that might be tried with safety. 



2 16 PLEURO-PNEUMONI A. 

Q. — Why not with safety, then, where the herd had been 
exposed, and one death had ensued ? 

A. — Because there is scarcely one chance in a hundred, 
that the disease would not go through nearly the whole herd. 
Where exposure has been so direct in a herd, where one or 
more animals have died with this disease, the chances of any 
of the animals escaping are very few indeed; one or two 
may. 

Q. — Then you do not mean to say " safely," but beneficially 
tried ; because if isolation is safe in one case, it is in both 
cases ? 

A. — Hardly safe, because there are so many accidents to 
which the cattle may be exposed, the breaking down of fences, 
<fcc, &c. 

Q. — You say, that in case of an exposed herd, isolation 
may be safe. Suppose they have taken the disease. 

A. — What I mean to say is this : where there has been a 
mere exposure, where there has been no case of positive dis- 
ease in a herd, but where a suspicion of exposure has existed 
simply, — where an animal, for instance, has passed by a diseased 
herd, a few feet off, and where you do not know that the herd 
will be sure to take it, or be positively diseased, 1 should 
hardly recommend the destroying of the herd in that case ; 
but where the disease has entered a herd, and there is almost 
a certainty of its going through that herd, and making them 
all either comparatively or wholly worthless, whether for the 
purpose of breeding, or ordinary farming purposes, I should 
say it would be very unsafe, very injudicious, as a matter of 
economy. 

Mr. Fisher. — The difficulty seems to be, that it is prac- 
tically impossible to ascertain in what stage the disease exists 
in an animal or in a herd ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, for one not accustomed to the disease. 

Q. — So that, on that ground it is exceedingly difficult to apply 
remedies ? 

A.— Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Would it not be necessary, if you attempted to cure an 
animal when the first symptoms appeared, to keep the whole 
herd isolated until you got through the whole experiment ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 217 

A. — I think so. 

Q. — Do you mean to stand by the statement you made, that 
it is difficult for any one to tell, when an animal is diseased in 
the early stage ? 

A. — Yes. It is not easy to detect the disease in the first 
stage, even by a surgeon. 

Q. — Have you any particular knowledge upon this subject, 
except what you have derived from books ? 

A. — I was with the Commission, all through their investiga- 
tions. I was present at every examination, and assisted in 
some cases. I have so much knowledge of it, that I think if I 
saw an animal opened I could tell whether it had the disease 
or not, unless it was in a very slightly developed case. The 
appearances are so very peculiar, and so specific, that I do not 
think any person, of ordinary intelligence, could fail to become 
acquainted with the appearances of the disease, after he had 
seen several cases. 

Q. — You are not a surgeon, nor a physician, and had no 
occasion to investigate this subject, until the Commission was 
appointed ? 

A— No, Sir. 

Q. — Can you furnish the statistics of the mortality that has 
appeared in England ? 

A. — I can furnish the Committee with certain articles con- 
cerning the disease. Some of them have already been laid 
before the Committee, by Dr. Loring and the Commissioners. 

Dr. Loring. — I would like to answer an inquiry that has been 
made here, but has not been answered. It is with regard to 
the history of this disease in any particular herd in England. 
I happen to have a report of Prof. Simonds upon inoculation, 
for the disease called pleuro-pneumonia in cattle. He gives 
the names of the men who assisted him in the examination. 
In a very few sentences, he makes a statement, which I have 
no doubt will be interesting to the Committee, as it has been to 
the Commissioners ; 

" On our first visit to Ruddington, Mr. Paget kindly placed at our 
disposal any number of animals we might select for the experiment of 
inoculation ; and this notwithstanding he was in full possession of our 
28 



218 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

opinion as to the serious ill consequences which might attend the opera- 
tion, as well as our doubts of its ultimately proving of any value as a 
prophylactic. From the history given, it appears that pleuro-pneumo- 
nia, which had prevailed more or less in the neighborhood of Notting- 
ham since 1843, first showed itself in Mr. Paget's herd in August, 1849. 
The attack was very virulent, and between this time and Christmas of 
the following year, it carried off no less seventy animals. In 1851 
thirty fell a sacrifice to the disease, and from January, 1852, to the end 
of November, when the experiments were commenced, thirty-two more 
animals were destroyed by it. We have thus a total loss of 132 animals 
from August, 1849, to November, 1852, inclusive; a period of little 
more than 3| years. From the changing state of the herd, the ratio of 
deaths to the number kept cannot now be ascertained, but it will be seen 
that the losses may be described as being ruinous in amount. 

" Mr. Paget milks upon the average, sixty cows, for the supply of the 
town of Nottingham ; besides which, he buys in from time to time, a 
number of animals to fatten, and also to supply the place of those which 
have been sacrificed to this and other diseases, so that he has from 90 
to 100 head of cattle usually on his premises. It is necessary to state 
that the amount of loss is partly guarded against by feeding the animals 
liberally, and by having them killed as soon as they give the slightest 
indication of being affected with pleuro-pneumonia, — experience having 
shown the inutility of medical treatment." 

The Chairman stated that he had received a communication 
from Dr. Martin, which was a continuation of his testimony 
given on Friday last, and was in relation to the cattle slaugh- 
tered at Belmont last Saturday. 

On motion of Dr. Choate, it was voted, that the communica- 
tion be printed in the Report. 

To Hon. Mr. Nash, Chairman of Legislative Committee : — 

Case 11th.— June 2d, 1860, 1 visited W. W. Chenery's herd, at Bel- 
mont, with Legislative Committee, and the State Commissioners. 
Examined a beautiful black and white Dutch heifer, one year old. She 
was taken quite sick in September, 1859, and continued very sick about 
six weeks ; then she commenced recovery. At present her eyes look 
bright, hair glossy and smooth, appetite good, presenting all the appear- 
ances to the eye of a healthy animal. She has coughed some ever 
since first attack. Percussion dull over right chest. In applying the 
ear, a coarse, mucous rattle can be heard at the base of right lung. 
Nothing unnatural about the external examination of left chest. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 219 

Autopsy. — Strong adhesion of the right lung to whole inside of chest, 
ribs, diaphragm, heart case, &c. The lung showed the effect of severe 
compression by the effusion of water, which water had been absorbed 
during the process of cure. 

On opening into the lung, we found a large cyst, big enough to hold a 
quart or two. But in this cyst we found no lump, no pus ; but we found 
an opening from it into the bronchial tubes. The question will be asked, 
what did that cyst contain ? No large cyst of this kind, in the early 
stage of the disease, has ever been seen by the writer, without having 
for its contents a large lump of detached lung, surrounded by pus. And 
is it not a fair inference that this originally contained the same, and that 
the lump had undergone decomposition, and been discharged with the 
pus into the mouth by coughing, and swallowed into the stomach, that 
being the way discharges from the lungs of cattle go ? The lung itself 
was lighter than water, and was beginning to be pervious to air all 
around the cyst, and had nearly regained its original pink color ; the 
color in the acute state being dark, like liver. The sack in this case was 
smooth, and seemed to be lined by a mucous membrane, and perform- 
ing its function, as we found mucus secreted from it. In that condition 
it (the sac) might remain without great injury, after being pushed into 
a much smaller space by the refilling and enlarging of the remainder of 
the lung, sufficient to fill that side of the chest — the cyst performing the 
duties of a dilated bronchial tube, showing the divine wisdom and power 
which presides over the laws that govern diseased action. 

The lung showed no less ability to admit air from the consequences 
of compression, than is seen in numerous cases of pleurisy in children 
who die from the compression of effused water, that would have been 
saved by tapping, and as others have done, presenting like symptoms, the 
lung and chest being a year or two in regaining their full functions ; the 
adhesions remain always. A person without experience would be 
likely to say, on seeing a man's lung compressed to the size of his fist, 
and appearing hard, that it would never get well, when nothing is more 
frequent in disease. If this lung contained a lump in its cyst, the lump 
did not go off by absorption, but by decomposition and discharge through 
the bronchial tubes. But the author expects to find in Mr. Chenery's 
herd, ultimately, a case or cases where an animal has commenced 
recovery and ceased coughing, showing an air tight cyst, with lump 
dissolved in pus and carried off by absorption, but at present he has no 
proof, only inference, this case not being in point. But this is the way 
that the medical faculty who have given the investigation of the disease 
care, think the cures are to take place, but your writer hopes and expects 
some will get well in this way, and some by absorption. In the two cases 
examined to-day, the heart was thinner and flabby, as usual ; the left 



220 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

ventricle thinner than right. I am informed that this is always the case ; 
but personally I have not observed that the left ventricle is always the 
thinnest, not having directed my attention to that point ; but the flabby 
state has been seen in all well-marked cases. The cow to be hereafter 
described in this paper, having but very little disease in its very early 
stage, showed a great thinning of the heart, and that this organ must be 
very early affected, but in what manner this is produced your deponent 
knoweth not ; and whether it is peculiar to all cases of pleuro-pneumonia 
or not he is not quite certain. But that patients sick with pleurisy 
frequently die from a coagulum in the heart he does know, which would 
imply a feebleness in that organ. 

This disease is strictly a supperative one. Its name should be suppera- 
tive, or turuncular-pneumonia. 

Case 12th. — Cow six years old ; she was taken into Mr. Chenery's 
herd as step-mother and nurse for a calf born of the recently imported 
Dutch cow, which died. She was introduced into the herd December 1st, 
1859, and is now presenting all the general appearances of health, 
excepting a slight cough. If our memory serves us right, the calf 
coughs also slightly, but he is a fat, healthy looking beauty. 

Could detect no disease by auscultation and percussion. 

Autopsy. — No adhesions, no serum, but at the base of the right lung 
was a darkish red spot, somewhat near three inches square. On cutting 
into it, we found it hard like liver, with the mucous membrane of the 
small bronchial tubes pushing out of the cut surface with their mouths 
filled with pus or mucus, giving this cut surface the appearance of being 
covered with innumerable small pustules, not quite as large as very small 
peas. There was another spot, but not as distinct, and it might not be 
disease, so it is not described. The rest of this lung, and the other, 
presented no marked appearance of disease. This was probably a case 
of mild contagious pleuro-pneumonia, in its very early stage ; but the 
writer is not quite sure, as he has not yet traced the connecting link 
between this and more active cases later in their progress. If this be a 
case, it settles the origin of the disease to be in that pouting, swelled 
mucous membrane, shown on cut surface, extending to substance of the 
lung, and then to the pleura. There are probably other cases in this herd 
in the various states of advancement, some of which will give the 
disease. 

By this and other mild cases, it will be seen how extremely difficult it 
will be to separate diseased from well cattle ; probably some that are 
thought not susceptible running through the disease and giving it to 
others like worse cases. This herd does not show that all its cases have 
passed eight weeks from taking disease, the least possible time to run 
through the time for incubation and propagation. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 221 

The attention of the Committee and the Commissioners is especially 
called to the following conclusions, based upon the personal observation 
of the writer : — 

All cases that die, die from the quantity not from the quality of the 
disease. They die from the local, not from the general effect. They 
die by the lung either being hardened so as to be impervious to air, or 
by the lung being compressed by the effusion of water, so that the air 
cannot enter it. A case may die from absorption of pus, but that is an 
accident, not the laws of the disease. All cases that do not die during 
the acute stage of the disease, go on regularly, step by step, towards 
recovery. 

And that the well lung will take on the disease after the sick one has 
commenced to recover, I do not believe. It might as well be pretended 
that the skin in smallpox that had remained sound would take on the 
peculiar diseased action, after the first eruption had commenced healing. 
A cow that has had the disease once is probably forever protected from 
it after, as much so as the man who has had smallpox. And the belief 
that one lung may be having the incipient, and the other the advanced 
stage of the disease, may be the result of the observers not being 
sufficiently acquainted with disease to recognize the return to health. 

All cases that the author has examined, that have died or were near 
death when killed, and all cases that have been described in public 
prints, had hardening of one or both lungs, and effusion in one or both 
chests ; and wherever there is effusion, there is hardening of that lung, 
the effusion being the effect of the continuation of the original lung 
difficulty. Of course, where there is effusion in both chests, the animal 
must die ; for if the water is removed by tapping, the harder the lungs 
are left. There is no sound lung to carry on the function of respiration, 
just as in confluent smallpox no healthy skin is left for perspiration, 
and the patient dies. But as a rule, where the hardening and effusion 
are confined to one side, if the animal dies, it dies from the well lung 
being compressed by the water from the other side. Such animals 
might and ought to be saved by tapping. Many a man and many an 
animal have gone down to an untimely grave, through the ignorance of 
the laws that govern animal life. 

Therefore it is incumbent upon this legislature to see to the appoint- 
ment of a scientific commission, composed of men, who by education, by 
the peculiar character of their minds, by experience in tracing cause 
and effect, by their standing with the community, will give confidence to 
their opinions, and quiet to the now uncertain and agitated state of 
public sentiment ; to select men with educated minds, clear heads, and 
sound hearts ; to clothe them with unlimited powers and unlimited means ; 






222 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

then they will either wipe this tremendous scourge from the land, or 
teach how to save most of the cattle. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Oramel Martin, M. D., 
One of the Committee of Mass. Med. Society. 

Evidence of Dr. J. B. S. Jackson, of Boston. 

Mr. Andrew. — Have you given to the subject of malignant 
pneumonia in cattle any attention ? 

J..-— I have seen some two or three specimens that have been 
brought to the city, and one of them I examined carefully ; the 
others I did not examine carefully. 

Q. — Will you be kind enough to state to the Committee, 
with such order and arrangement as you think best, what inves- 
tigations you made, and what results followed ? 

A. — The specimen I examined carefully I found to be differ- 
ent from the disease pleuro-pneumonia, as it occurs in the 
human subject. It was quite remarkably different, so much so 
that I exhibited the specimen before a meeting of one of our 
medical societies, and my description of that particular speci- 
men was published in the Medical Journal. It would be use- 
less to attempt to describe, to non-professional persons, what 
the anatomical appearance was. Although I have examined 
many specimens, in the human subject, I have never found the 
appearance that I found in this case. 

Q. — Did you ever examine any specimens of diseased neat 
cattle before ? 

A. — There was a buffalo from the western country, that died 
in this city several years ago, and I examined that animal. It 
was a very strongly marked case of pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — Was this characteristically different from that ? 

A. — That was so long ago that I don't know whether the 
same peculiarities existed in that case, that I observed in this 
last case, or not. I think if it had, however, I should have been, 
struck with it. This specimen, I would say, that interested me 
so much, was one brought to the hospital by Dr. Wood. There 
I saw it, and took a part of it home to examine. 

Q. — Have you studied this subject of disease in cattle, either 
by reference to authorities or otherwise ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 223 

4.— Not at all. 

Q. — Have you any advice or opinion upon the subject, that 
you could give to the Committee ? 

A. — I have nothing to offer to them that I think of. I am 
perfectly free to give my opinion, so far as I can form it. 

Q.— Have you any basis upon which you could form and 
express an opinion, touching the contagiousness or curability 
of this disease, or possibility of limiting or controlling it by 
any sort of treatment ? 

A. — The contagiousness, Sir, struck us, here, as a yqtj sin- 
gular feature in the case ; it was something we had never 
heard of — a contagious pleuro-pneumonia. I supposed that it 
was that, and not a malignant fever of some form, in which 
pleuro-pneumonia is to be found in a large proportion of 
cases ; when you would say, that the fever is the disease, 
and pleuro-pneumonia (to give it a name) is only a complica- 
tion. The testimony is so conclusive, that it is admitted by 
many of the profession, that it must be contagious, on authority. 
With regard to curability, even, though it may be ever so con- 
tagious, as is the case with some diseases affecting the human 
subject, there is no reason a priori, why it might not, in a cer- 
tain number of cases, be treated successfully. We understand, 
on the same general authority, that a very large proportion of 
cases are fatal — very, very large. We only get it from general 
rumor, but even if it is, some might be benefitted by treatment; 
I do not know, however, how far our method of treatment might 
operate. But as to what has been done for the animals, since 
the disease has been prevailing in this country, I do not know 
that I have heard of any thing except merely with a view to 
check its onward progress ; animals having been killed in a 
large number of cases, as soon as it was ascertained that they 
had the disease upon them. 

Q. — You have not examined the history of the subject in 
England and on the continent ? 

A. — No, Sir ; I have not. 

Q. — Do you know any means of checking the progress of a 
single case of disease which is contagious ? 

A. — Well, Sir, we know that smallpox is a Yery contagious 
disease, and that a large portion of cases of smallpox recover. 



224 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — That is not the question, but whether you have the 
means of cutting it short during its progress ? 

A. — I suppose it may be that this, like many other diseases, 
is a self-limited disease (as they have been called by many) ; 
that is, it has a certain time. Smallpox and scarlet fever, 
when they get into the system, must run longer or shorter, and 
there are no active means, that we know of, that we can use, 
that will cut them short. 

Q. — So far as analogy goes, would you not expect the same 
rule to apply to this disease, if it has been established to be 
contagious ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; if it is in the system, there are probably no 
means by which you can cut it short, so that the animal would 
be well in a few days. 

Q. — Do you know whether the disease can be readily cured 
in its first stages ? 

A. — As I say, I know nothing whatever about it. 

Q. — Have you examined any authorities ? 

A. — Not a single authority. 

Q. — Never have seen a case' of it ? 

A. — Never. 

Q. — Only one lung ? 

A. — More than one — two or three ; may have been four. 

Q. — The opinion has been offered here that it is curable in 
one stage. Now, should you expect that a contagious disease 
was any more curable in one stage than another disease pro- 
duced by specific poison, breathed into the system and affecting 
the vital organs ? 

A. — I believe I have answered that question twice before, 
that the disease, when it gets into the system, will have a run. 

Q. — It has been asserted that the disease may be cut short, 
if taken in season ? 

A. — I cannot believe it. 

Q. — The last witness said it was curable ; that is, that the 
animal may recover under proper hygienic and medical 
treatment ? 

A. — I suppose that the chance of recovery would depend 
upon the amount of the dose of poison, which the animal has 
taken into his lungs. As in the case of smallpox, some will 
take a heavy dose of the poison, and others a light dose. It is 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 225 

probable that those who had a heavy dose will die, whatever 
the treatment may be; those who have taken only a light dose 
will probably recover, under any suitable treatment. Then the 
question is, in regard to the intermediate cases. If they are 
taken in the early stages, and receive proper treatment, I don't 
see any reason, a priori, why a considerable number might not 
recover. If they were left to themselves, and if their diet was 
not attended to, their chance would, of course, be small ; and 
if they had much febrile excitement, I don't see why the bleed- 
ing that we heard Mr. Flint refer to might not be used success- 
fully. Treatment consists in the first place in what you might 
call nursing, and then medical treatment. I refer to bleeding, 
as well as the use of drugs. I don't know whether any drugs 
would be useful in such a case. 

Q.— -Do you know of any thing that will qualify the poison 
introduced into the human system, in a contagious disease ? 
Is it possible to cut it short or qualify it in any way ? Suppose 
the smallpox has been introduced, can you, in the first stage, 
cure that disease except by allowing it to go through a regular 
course of changes ? 

A. — If the person has never been vaccinated, and has been 
exposed to a bad case, it is almost a certainty that he will be 
diseased. Then let him attend to his condition, and when the 
disease comes on, let him be treated judiciously, in a hygienic 
way, and let any symptoms that arise be treated. If there is 
high febrile excitement, or diarrhoea, or constipation, let them 
be treated ; but, for the disease itself, there is no remedy that 
we know of in the medical profession, that will touch it. I 
suppose that the same law applies to the diseases of animals. 

Q. — My question was to ascertain whether this disease could 
be cured in any stage, or whether it must go through all the 
stages. Is not that the law of contagious diseases ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; and of a great many other diseases. I sup- 
pose that the disease would run through its course. 

Q. — You suppose that this disease is caused by poison taken 
into the vital organs ? 

A. — I do not know much about the causes. 

Q. — It is a poison ? 

A. — For the sake of giving it a name, we call it a poison. 

29 



226 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q. — And, when this poison is applied to the animal system, 
the general impression is, that it cannot be modified essen- 
tially ? 

A. — I say that hygienic treatment will render the disease 
less virulent. 

Mr. Andrew. — Now, I would like to add up this sum 
the other way, and see if it will prove. The questions put to 
you by Dr. Choate have gone upon the assumption that this 
disease is a contagious one. Now, supposing it were proved to 
be true, that in a certain stage of the case it is curable, would 
or would not that tend to show that the disease is not con- 
tagious ? 

A. — If you mean to ask whether if a dozen animals were 
taken in an early stage of the disease, and treated by a judi- 
cious veterinary surgeon, and got well, it would show that that 
disease was not contagious, 1 should say that it would not. 

Q. — The answer you give assumes that the disease has its 
run, as the phrase is ; but supposing that it turns out, upon 
experiment, that the animals taken and treated medicinally, in 
a certain stage of the disease, may be cured, without the dis- 
ease having a run, would .that or not tend to show that the dis- 
ease taken by them was not a contagious one ? 

A. — Well, Sir, I do not feel prepared to give an answer. 
There are cases of dysentery, and diarrhoea, and some other 
cases that we are called to, that will be sometimes cut off very 
short by medical treatment. We may treat the patient almost 
heroically, and we are sometimes skilful enough, by active 
means to cut short the disease ; but in an ordinary case of fever — 
typhoid fever, yellow fever, the English ship fever, or any form 
of fever — and in cases of pleuro-pneumonia and pleurisy, it is 
a very, very rare thing for any one to take a patient and be 
able to cut the disease short, if of any sort of severity ; it will 
have a certain run, whether it is contagious, as in some forms 
of fever, or not in the slightest degree contagious, as is the 
case with pleuro-pneumonia. 

Q. — Some of the witnesses have testified that this disease, in 
its first stage, is curable. I do not know what curable means, 
only I suppose that it means some way of getting the animal well. 
Supposing that it is curable in the first stage, — I don't sup- 
pose that it makes any particular difference whether it is cura- 






HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 227 

ble by reason of its being cut short, or by controlling the dis- 
ease, so that it shall not be very dangerous, — "assuming that 
it be so, does tne fact of the disease being contagious render it 
at all probable that it is not liable to control and limitation by 
proper hygienic and medical treatment? 

A.— I think, Sir, that the question might almost be answered, 
at any rate, an answer might be inferred, from what I said 
before, that hygienic and medical treatment will control more 
or less, contagious diseases, as well as other diseases. It is 
well known, that in cases of smallpox, or measles, under judi- 
cious treatment, the patient often goes through the disease 
very kindly. 

Q. — Have you not found, in treating measles, that the 
proper treatment, on the first appearance of the symptoms, 
may so modify the disease, that even the " run," may be cut 
short, and the patient go through the stages quicker, under 
proper treatment ? In other words, have you not seen cases of 
measles in which the treatment had been neglected, prove pro- 
tracted, and the disease have a longer run than in ordinary 
cases of measles ? 

A. — Certainly, Sir. 

Q.— And the same rule will apply to other diseases as well 
as to measles ? 

A. — I suppose the disease will be likely to go through its 
" run " in a shorter time, and with less violence. 

Dr. Loring. — Are there not diseases in the human system, 
whose progress may be stopped, at some certain point, and yet 
leave a serious organic difficulty behind them ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. I have a case in my mind now of scarlet 
fever, where the patient recovered from the disease, but is left 
with a diseased ear, and will probably be deaf for life. 

Q — I mean a disease of the organs ; for instance, may there 
not be an ordinary case of pleuro-pneumonia, which would, 
leave the lung in such a condition that it would be useless ? 

A. — Consumption might follow on as the sequel of pneu- 
monia, and pleurisy may be attended with large effusion of 
fluid into the chest, which may make a very protracted case 
of it. The patient may finally sink from the disease, or may 
finally recover. 



228 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Q — That you would not expect, when the disease appears 
to be cured ? ' 

A. — Not if the patient should apparently get entirely well ; 
but there are a great many cases in which the patient is 
left in a weakly, feeble state, so that, although he may go about 
his business and consider himself well, a physician would see 
that he was not well. 

Q — Might there not remain in the lung, after an inflamma- 
tory disease, either pneumonia, or pleuro-pneumonia, a portion 
of the lung which would probably be useless to a person during 
his life ? 

A. — It is not, I suppose, by any means a rare occurrence, as 
you must know, that a portion of the lung will remain useless, 
after the individual has essentially recovered from the disease, 
but then, lie has got enough lung left besides to work with. 

Q. — In such a case as that, would it not be difficult to say 
that the patient is cured ? 

A.. — He appears cured, to all practical purposes, but ana- 
tomically he may be in a diseased condition. 

Mr. Andrew. — This question of cure, in medicine, is more a 
matter of comparison than otherwise, after the disease has once 
attacked the system, is it not ? 

A — It is very well known, that a great many persons, after 
recovering, apparently, from disease, are left with a certain 
amount of disease behind, — a variety of diseases, — diseases of 
the chest, the abdomen, and the head. As there are a great 
many of us, who may have a good deal of disease in us, which 
does not manifest itself, so disease is left after sickness, which 
does not particularly manifest itself, nor interfere with a 
person's going about. 

In answer to a question, which did not reach the reporter's 
ear, Dr. Jackson said, So far as I see, these gentlemen (the 
veterinary surgeons) recognize disease as we cannot begin to 
recognize it in the human subject. I wish we had the skill in 
diagnosis, that they seem to have. 

A Member. — I would like to have you state in brief, the 
appearance of that lung which you saw ? 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 229 

A. — I will state, in a summary way, for the information of the 
physicians present, that the peculiarity consisted in the inter- 
lobular substance being primarily inflamed, and the vesicular 
structure becoming affected subsequently. It was an acute dis- 
ease, and the interlobular cellular tissue was affected before, 
and to some little distance beyond, where the disease was ob- 
served in the vesicular structure ; and it was only when the 
disease was advanced in the interlobular cellular tissue, that 
hepatization existed in the vesicular structure. To make it 
understood, to non-professional gentlemen, I will say, that the 
lungs, as you all know, are vesicular in their structure, — but if 
you examine them particularly, you will find that they are 
made up of little lobules side by side ; and these last are con- 
nected together by loose cellular tissue. Now, in pneumonia 
in the human subject, the vesicular structure of the lungs 
seems to be the proper seat of the disease ; whereas, in the 
animal that I examined, it was this cellular tissue, between the 
lobules, which was primarily affected, and then subsequently 
the vesicular structure. 

Mr. Andrew. — Dr. Jackson, have you considered the benefit 
of a special scientific investigation into this disease ? 

A. — I have not thought much about it, Sir, because I thought 
It was so self-evident, that the subject spoke for itself. 

Q. — In what way, self-evident ? 

A. — In the first place, the natural history of the disease- 
how the disease originated— but many of these points have 
been ascertained ; the proofs of contagion, — which, as many 
seem to suppose, is established ; then the period of incubation — 
how soon an animal will be sick after it has been exposed ; then 
the symptoms of the disease- — that will enable the farmer, or a 
veterinary surgeon, to recognize it in its early stage ; then the 
symptoms after the disease has got established ; then the modes 
of treatment — 'the. medical mode, and the hygienic mode, and 
the matter of isolation. 

Q. — What experiment would you try, in regard to exposure, 
Sir? 

J..— That is a point that I have thought of. Two or three 
cattle known to be well, might be taken, and put with an 
animal known to have the disease, to see if it will affect them, 



230 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

and in order to ascertain what proportion of individuals 
exposed would take the disease. It is generally regarded by 
the profession, that all persons are not by any means subject 
to such diseases, for instance, as the yellow fever. One person 
in a family will be taken and go through the disease, and not 
another individual have it. But the grand object would be the 
trial of treatment. 

Dr. Loring. — Do you suppose that the establishment of this 
knowledge in the community — the knowledge that you have 
just given in detail — would be of more value, than the estab- 
lishment of the fact that the disease was eradicated, — that it 
was gone, — that there was no such disease here ? 

A. — No, Sir ; that last is the great desideratum. 

Q. — Suppose that Mr. Chenery's herd, for instance, — which 
seems to have been the seat, and the sole seat, of the disease in 
the country, for many months, — had been entirely destroyed in 
the outset, and the course of the disease had been stopped 
there ? You would consider that of more value to the farming 
interests of the community, than the results of any scientific 
investigations made there ? 

A. — It would be self-evident to any one, a professional man 
or otherwise, that if Mr. Chenery's whole stock, — even if there 
were three hundred of them, — having this animal poison 
amongst them, and liable to communicate it (if it was known 
that there were no other cases of the disease in the country, 
except those in his herd) — if every individual had been sacri- 
ficed, every one would admit that that was the best thing to be 
done. But when the disease has gone abroad, is in other 
parts of the State, and is in other States, then we view it in a 
different light. 

Q. — Exactly so ; but would you not say, that the same rule, 
which would apply to them, would apply to the case now, if the 
facts could be ascertained ? 

A. — If it could be ascertained that a herd of fifty here, thirty 
there, and twenty in another place, were affected, and it was 
no where else, it would be better that all of those should be killed, 
than that millions and millions of cattle should be exposed. 
But I do not know how that could be ascertained. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 231 

Q — Then the question comes down to one of the possibili- 
ties — whether it is possible to ascertain these facts or not ? 

A. — Whether it is possible to ascertain, whether the cattle 
throughout New England have been exposed or not. If you 
can settle that point, you would do a great deal. 

Q. — You would think that worth trying for ? 

A, — Yes, if there was the slightest chance of success ; but I 
don't see that there would be. When cattle are carried all 
about the country, taken from one farm to another, and hired 
by the day, I don't- see that it would be possible to ascertain 
what individuals have been exposed. 

Q. — It would depend very much on how far the trade ex- 
tended from a given point — how far cattle were distributed from 
a given point ? 

A— Yes. If you could keep the run of the trade, so that 
you could know how far cattle are bartered, and how far they 
are let out by the day, and so on, you might get at it. 

Mr. Wentworth. — If you take into consideration the probable 
fact that this disease is contagious, and that we are liable to it, 
from our importations of cattle at all times, is it, or not, of the 
highest importance, that we should endeavor to ascertain its 
cure ? 

A. — It is, at any rate — contagious or not. 

Evidence of Robert Wood. 

Q. — What is your occupation ? 

A. — Veterinary surgeon. 

Q. — State what observations you made at the examination 
of the two animals that were killed at Mr. Chenery's on Satur- 
day, and in your examination of the disease generally ? 

A. — From my examination of these cases, and from what I 
have learned from my brother, Dr. Thayer, Dr. Dadd, and 
others, of the characteristics of this disease, I have no doubt of 
its being pleuro-pneumonia, as it is recognized in Europe. As 
regards the examination of the two animals on Saturday, I took 
what notice I could of them. I saw the lungs as they were 
presented to the persons standing about, and carried a part 
of them home and examined them again. I have no doubt 
that the heifer was then recovering from an attack of this 



232 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

disease. There was no evidence ' me then of disease exist- 
ing, other than altered structure, the result of disease. Of the 
cow, I think there were evidences of acute disease going on at 
the time. 

A Member. — Mr. Chairman, I thought we had voted that 
no more testimony was advisable upon the progress of the 
disease. 

Mr. Wentworth. — This evidence is as to the two cases last 
Saturday. « 

Q. — You have heard the evidence regarding the cases at Mr. 
Chenery's — have you any thing to add to that ? 

A. — I could only corroborate the testimony as to the exhi- 
tions of disease there. 

Q. — Whether it is curable or not, and whether it is desira- 
ble to treat it for a cure ? 

A. — I think not. If it is true that it is a specific disease, 
then there is no treatment that would cure it. We could only 
modify the effect of it. 

Q. — Do you think it can be cured ? 

A. — No, Sir ; but I think there may be a course of treatment 
that would modify the effect of the disease, rendering it less 
destructive to the body. 

Q — You don't understand me. I ask whether the animal 
can be cured — whether the disease can finally be overcome by 
treatment ? 

A. — I should have my doubts. 

Q. — Whether an animal ever gets well ? 

A. — Yes, I have no doubt that there are many that get 
well. If properly cared for, the greater number would get 
well. As in all other diseases of this character, some generally 
recover. 

Q. — Whether in your judgment it would be desirable to 
experiment with a view of ascertaining what is the best mode 
of treating cases ? 

A. — For the benefit of medical science, I think it would. 

Q. — What do you think with reference to the farmers ? 

A. — It would be a question with me. We cannot judge now 
whether it would be policy or not, as regards dollars and cents. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 233 

That would depend upon experiment. It would depend upon 
what would be the cost, and how long they would require to 
be kept before the danger of their communicating the disease 
would cease. 

Q. — If a cure could be found at moderate cost, of course it 
would be very desirable to discover it ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, undoubtedly. 

Q. — And there is no mode of ascertaining that except by 
experiment ? 

A. — I think experiments might be conducted by isolating the 
animal properly, so that there would be no danger resulting 
from it. 

Q. — Do you know what the proportion of mortality is in 
these cases ? Have you examined to see how it has been in 
England ? 

A. — No, Sir, — not so as to make a correct statement. Various 
estimates have been made, but they do not agree. In some 
districts in all parts of Europe, but more especially in England, 
the mortality is greater than in others, depending upon the 
condition in which the animals are placed. I think that if 
animals that were sick could be placed in the most healthy 
atmosphere, and have the best and most wholesome food, and 
kindly care, the mortality would be less. 

Q. — Do you think that would be attributable to the treat- 
ment, or to the fact that they inhaled less poison than others ? 

A. — The amount of poison would be less; and the treatment 
would tend to strengthen the forces of the body, and to resist 
the disease. 

Q. — Would you expect to save the life of an animal or man 
who had inhaled a large quantity of poison, or who had been 
placed in circumstances favorable to such an event ? 

A. — I should have a stronger hope of saving him in those 
circumstances than if in an unhealthy atmosphere. 

Q. — Don't you suppose the difference between a severe case 
and a slight one is owing to the amount of poison originally 
inhaled ? 

A. — Yes, Sir, undoubtedly. 

Q. — You think mild cases would be affected more by remedies 
than severe ones ? 

30 



234 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — Undoubtedly. I think that if animals that have been 
slightly exposed could he isolated and have good care, there 
would be a stronger probability of recovery than if they were 
kept in the same plaee with other cattle, and had poor care. 

Q. — I should like to ask if, in your experience in the care of 
cattle, it has not been more expensive to cure than it would to 
kill them ? Would not the attempt to cure be profitless to the 
farmer ? 

A. — It may be so. 1 have not gone into any estimate to 
satisfy myself on that point. The duration of the poison in 
the system is a question with me. That must be settled before 
we can get at the value of curative measures. If we could 
cure a case in a short time, it would be profitable. If it took 
a long time, the cost would eat up the value of the cow, so that 
there would be no profit. 

Q. — Do you think they could be entirely cured, so as to be 
useful for all purposes ? 

A.— I think it possible. 

Q. — Do you think that one of these cured animals would 
sell for half price in the market ? 

A. — Yes ; after people have become convinced that they are 
cured. 

Q. — Mr. Wood, would the calf killed at Mr. Chenery's last 
Saturday, have been worth any thing as a steer for laboring 
purposes ? 

A.— I think that animal would have been worth something 
to work ; not as much as one perfectly organized, but there 
would be a value in the animal, if it had been allowed to live. 

Q.-— For all purposes ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; for labor, marketing purposes, or breeding 
purposes. 

Q. — A certain value ? 

A. — Yes, Sir ; not the full value. 

Q.— Do you think such an animal could have healthy 
progeny ? 

A. — I cannot see why an animal with but one lung cannot 
propagate its species as well as if entirely sound. I can con- 
ceive no law which would warrant me in saying that the dis- 
ease would be transmitted to the progeny. 

Q. — You do not know that this disease does not leave the 
system in the same condition that a man is left in with but one 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 235 

lung ? It has been stated that there was something peculiar in 
the morbid anatomy of the disease ; and you do not know that 
the peculiarity is that it is a tubercular disease ? 

A. — I am strongly convinced that it is not. After cure, there 
is no evidence of the disease remaining in a form which could 
break forth anew. It is my impression that the organism would 
be sufficiently perfect to produce healthy progeny. 

Q.— Are you not aware that it has been stated that in Eng- 
land, animals that were cured were considered comparatively 
useless ? 

A. — I am not. 

Q. — Have you ever seen the lungs of a calf born of a cow 
diseased with the pleuro-pneumonia ? 

A. — I have seen a portion of one. 

Q — Did you find any disease in the calf? 

A. — I found a little. 

Q. — How do you suppose it acquired it ? 

A. — If a cow had this disease and lived and recovered simply 
with less organism as the result, and then gave birth to a calf, 
I cannot see how she could transmit the disease. I cannot 
realize the fact that it exists in her system. 

Q, — Suppose the ravages of the disease have impaired the 
constitution of the animal, would the calf be likely to be im- 
paired likewise ? 

A. — Undoubtedly, Sir. 

Q. — Would you not think the vital force or energy consider- 
ably impaired, if one lung had been entirely broken down ? 

A. — Undoubtedly, Sir. 

Q. — Don't you think that in the case of this calf, its vital 
force or energy was impaired by the condition of the lung of 
the cow in which it was found ? 

A. — I have no doubt it was in that individual case. 

Q. — Then for breeding purposes you would not consider an 
animal as good as though it had never had the disease ? 

A. — It would be of value, but not of equal value. 

Q. — You don't think the progeny would be affected if there 
was a recovery ? • 

A. — If the cow has entirely recovered, having one sound lung, 
I do not see why she should give birth to a calf less in organism 
than though she had two lungs. 



230 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

Evidence of Henry M. Hook. 

Q. — Have you attended the examination of these cases at 
Mr. Chenery's ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — Are you a physician ? 

A. — Yes, Sir. 

Q. — What is your opinion upon the evidence here, as to 
whether the disease is contagious or not? 

A. — From the evidence given, I should say the question was 
open, whether it was or was not a contagious disease ; from the 
fact, as given in testimony, that the bull which was carried to 
South Africa was five months on its passage, in health, and was 
six weeks in the colony, in health, before disease was shown ; 
from the fact that the animal carried to Australia was a long 
time on the voyage and was in health on arriving ; from the 
fact, furthermore, that the stock imported by Mr. Chenery was 
taken from a healthy district, and there is no evidence shown 
that it was exposed to diseased stock, that it was sometime on 
the passage, and that the disease itself did not break out until 
sometime after arriving ; from the fact, furthermore, that it 
appears in testimony given here to-day in relation to England, 
that it had prevailed there for twenty years, but only in a small 
district, — that it once ceased there and then broke out and 
destroyed a large proportion of a large stock, — that it has 
remained there for twenty years, in a small district, and no 
parliamentary enactments have been made to curtail it ; — while 
if it had been a very virulent, contagious disease, it would have 
spread further and excited more attention ; from the fact, 
furthermore, that a few years ago, I, and physicians generally, 
regarded typhoid fever, and dysentery, as contagious diseases, 
which I do not now regard as such at all, and that the cholera 
was so regarded ; and doubts now exist as to the contagiousness 
even of scarlatina, — of the contagiousness of which I have seen 
no evidence for the last three or four years ; and from the fact, 
furthermore, that all the epidemics that I have ever known the 
history 0/ were at first regarded as contagious, and could be 
traced from one location to another as a matter of contagion. 
Then, on the other hand, there has been very strong proof that 
the disease is contagious, in its having been carried by Mr. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 237 

Cbenery's stock from one place to another, — although it was 
carried to one place and did communicate the disease, and to 
another place and did not. 

Q. — How, then, was it introduced into the well cattle ? 

A. — If it is a contagious disease, I should say it was com- 
municated through the atmosphere, and the contagious agent, — 
what was derived from the body and the lungs of the diseased 
animal, — was inhaled into the lungs or the blood of the one 
that receives the disease. 

Q. — In your judgment, would the blood be affected ? 

A. — I have no doubt that is the primary lesion. 

Q. — Do you or do you not think this disease is in some 
degree a constitutional disease ? Do you believe in its local 
nature altogether ? 

A. — I believe it is a constitutional disease — effecting the 
blood, and through the blood, that the lungs become involved. 
The natural location is in the lungs. 

Q. — Do you think that the lung may be diseased, at the 
same time that other parts of the body remain perfectly sound ? 

A. — The lung may be diseased, and the other part of the 
system remain sound, throughout, if it is not a constitutional 
disease ; otherwise not. 

Q. — What evidence would convince you beyond a doubt of 
its contagious nature ? 

A. — Long and continued observation. 

Q. — How long ? 

A. — Until the matter was conclusively settled throughout 
the community. 

Q. — But then it may be settled as the nature of the epi- 
demics you have alluded to were, and afterwards we may find 
we were mistaken ? 

A. — Very well ; length of time has settled their nature, and 
they are only epidemic, not contagious. I lately travelled in 
southern Missouri and Texas, where they had a cattle disease 
which they called Texas fever. There was a great deal of strife 
between the different sections about that ; and I found the peo- 
ple nearly divided as to its contagion, and it has existed there 
for eight or ten years, and the question is not yet settled. 

Q. — But supposing that we began a course of investigation, 
to ascertain whether the disease is contagious or not. Suppos- 



238 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

ing that the evidence from the beginning should uniformly go 
to prove that it was contagious, and could be traced from actual 
exposure, — so far the evidence would be on the side of conta- 
gion, would it not ? 

A. — So far, it would. 

Q. — But you would not be fully satisfied ? 

A. — Not fully satisfied. There might be an epidemic or 
pandemic influence existing ; and if one animal so diseased 
with the prevailing disease or epidemic, was brought in relation 
to a healthy animal who was predisposed on account of the 
epidemic, I believe the poison eliminated from the lungs of the 
diseased one, might be conducive to bring forth the disease in 
the lungs of the other, in the process of time. Therefore, 
I believe that some epidemics, in their origin, when they 
were violent, were to a degree contagious. I think typhoid 
fever was at one time contagious, but for the rast five or eight 
years, I have not seen any thing to lead me to suppose it was. 

Q. — Does not the same process of reasoning lead us to con- 
clude that this disease is contagious? 

A. — It may be so ; but I would not put it on record that it 
was my opinion that it was contagious ; for I consider the ques- 
tion still open. 

Q — In an exigency like the present, the testimony of obser- 
vation up to this time being that the disease has been commu- 
nicated, wherever it has been known to exist, — if action is 
called for, — it would be, in your judgment, the safest course for 
the public to be on the side of isolation ? 

A. — Most certainly. 

Q. — You would think it, as a practical matter, best to treat 
this disease as though it were contagious ? 

A. — I should. 

Q. — What do you think of the mode of treatment ? Would 
you advise treating for a cure, or would you advise this whole- 
sale slaughtering? 

A. — So far as treatment goes, we have had similar attacks 
of scarlatina and measles, &c. ; and we have no specifics for 
them. But I would treat this disease on general principles. 
If I found an animal hot and feverish, I would give cooling 
laxatives ; if I found them wasting, I should use tonics, stimu- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 239 

lants, and nourishment ; but as to specifics, it is out of reason 
to hope for cure. 

Q. — Would you advise treating for a cure rather than killing 
indiscriminately, wherever a herd had been exposed ? 

A. — In my judgment, it would be better to leave the police 
regulation of the matter with each town, and recommend that 
they should have two farms set apart, one for those that were 
diseased, and one for those that had been exposed ; and when 
any creature was so far exhausted with the disease as not to 
admit of any cure, I would slaughter it as a matter of pecuni- 
ary interest. To the others, I would give good diet and good 
air, and but little medicine. 

Q. — Would you not do any thing ? 

A. — If I did any thing in the early stage, I should treat 
them upon what I should call the scientific idea of correcting 
the poison in the blood, namely, by antiseptics. I would begin 
with muriatic or chloric acid. 

Q. — Would not that affect the milk of cows ? 

A. — Not injuriously. 

Q. — In your judgment, Sir, would cattle thus affected be fit 
to eat, if they were fatted. 

A. — I would not recommend that cattle that were sick so as 

to be emaciated should be used for food. But cattle that were 

* 

in an improving condition, the health of which has become 
such that they are fattening, could not be deleterious. I judge 
from this fact, — that in a hospital at Marseilles, dogs were fed 
upon malignant tumors, and the blood of infectious diseases, 
and they grew fat and were healthy ; but when the bile from 
many of these diseases was injected into the veins, they took 
the disease. And in the North, we know that the Laplanders 
eat dead whale with impunity and with improving health ; and 
in some places, like the Amoor River, the inhabitants pile up 
fish till it putrifies, and then eat it, it being more stimulating 
than when taken in a fresh state. I believe that there is a 
great deal of prejudice in respect to food. 

Q. — Then you believe in the antiseptic powers of the 
stomach ? 

A. — I do, if it is in a good, healthy condition. 

Q. — Suppose this disease to be contagious, how far should 
you think the effluvia would extend ? 



240 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

A. — That would depend upon the location. If an animal 
was exposed to the disease, the wind blowing towards him, he 
would take it some considerable distance ; but if the wind blew 
the other way, they would not take it in five rods, nor one. I 
have a case in my mind. I had a violent case of smallpox in 
a boarding-house. A girl was sick almost to death, and in the 
adjoining room, the boarders eat their meals ; but no one took 
the disease. And from the testimony given, I don't take this 
disease to be as contagious as smallpox. 

Q. — How many of the inmates of that house were vac- 
cinated ? 

A. — I presume most of them were vaccinated. 

Q. — Well, don't you believe that vaccination is reliable to 
prevent the disease ? 

A. — I believe it prevents smallpox, but not the varioloid. 

Q. — As a general rule, what amount of isolation should you 
think would be necessary. 

A. — If I had stock, I should want ten rods. 

Q. — You have, no doubt that a quarter of a mile would be 
sufficient ? 

A. — Ample. 

The evidence here closed, and the Committee adjourned to 
three o'clock, P. M. 

Afternoon Session. 

Tuesday, June 5. 

Met at three o'clock. 

In the absence of the Chairman, Hon. Mr. Fisher, of Nor- 
folk, was chosen Chairman pro tern. 

The Chairman said the parties appearing before the Com- 
mittee were now expected to present any arguments they might 
desire to offer. 

Mr. Andrew. — I do not intend to trouble the Committee with 
an argument; but in consequence of having had placed in 
my hands by Mr. Wetherell a couple of treatises, or rather a 
medical treatise, called the " Stock Raiser's Manual," by 
Youatt, and a volume of the Veterinarian, in both of which I 
found some valuable matter bearing upon this disease, and the 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 241 

results of observations and experiment, it struck me that I might 
perform some useful services by giving to the Committee the 
benefit of a few brief extracts from those portions of these 
books which touch upon this subject of pleuro-pneumonia. 
And I first call the attention of the Committee to " Youatt's 
Stock Raiser's Manual," edition of 1844. Under the title, 
" chronic pleurisy," or " chronic pleura-pneumonia," which 
appears on page 407, the writer refers to an article written by 
M. Lecoq, one of the teachers of the Veterinary School of 
Lyons, and although that appears to have been first published in 
1833, Prof. Youatt reproduced it again in his edition of 1844, 
as if he had seen nothing of a later date to correct the opinions 
of Lecoq, entertained in 1833. The extracts from Lecoq's 
article occupy three pages of this book, but I will take up 
your time only to read two or three sentences on pages 408 
and 409. 

"M. Lecoq hazards some conjectures respecting the cause of this 
disease, which are very ingenious, and from which our breeders and 
graziers may derive some useful hints. He says that ' the graziers 
imagine that the animals bring the disease with them from th^r native 
country ; and the traces of chronic disease which are found in them, even 
when they are slaughtered soon after their arrival, singularly confirm 
this opinion. Cattle that have been worked hard, and driven far, and 
somewhat too rapidly, are often attacked by diseases of the chest, which 
generally leave some dangerous traces behind them ; and besides this, 
the breeders know their interest sufficiently well to get rid of those 
animals as soon as they can that have been affected with chest com- 
plaints. 

" ' The manner in which the journey is performed contributes much to 
revive the old disorder. The cattle purchased in Franche Compte are 
brought into Avesnes at two periods of the year — in the autumn and in 
the spring. Those which are brought in the autumn are more subject to 
the disease than those which arrive in the spring ; and almost always, 
the years in which the malady is most prevalent are those in which the 
weather was bad during the journey of the beasts ; and the disease is 
usually fatal in proportion to the badness of the weather. 

* ' The journey, also, is performed by two different routes — through 
Lorraine and Champagne, and often the disease appears only in the 
cattle that have arrived by one of these routes. 

" ' The manner in which the cattle are treated on their arrival, may 
contribute not a little to the development of the disease. They have, 
31 



242 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

perhaps, been driven a hundred leagues during bad weather; they have 
been half-starved on their journey, and they arrived famished and worn 
out, and, in fact, the greater part of them are lame. Calculating on 
their ravenous appetite, the graziers,, instead of giving them wholesome 
food, make them consume the worst that the farm contains — all this is 
musty and mouldy ; and it is often by the cough which the act of eating 
of such food necessarily produces,, that the malady is first discovered.' " 

He goes on to say that the treatment is the most unsatis- 
factory part of Lecoq's paper, and remarks that however skil- 
ful the treatment may be, the recoveries are very few. On 
page 409 is this language :— 

u M. Lecoq finally enters into the question of the contagiousness of this 
disease. The farmers believe it to be contagious, and he is partly of 
their opinion. When a beast falls sick in the pasture, the others, after 
his removal, go and smell of the grass where he has lain, and which he 
has covered with his saliva; and after that, M. Lecoq has always seen' 
new cases succeed to the first. He has also seen three cases in which 
the cattle of the country, perfectly well before, have fallen iH, and died 
with the same symptoms, except that they were more acute after they 
have been kept with pleuritic cattle. He, therefore, regards this affec- 
tion as contagious; or at least, he imagines that, in the progress of the 
disease, the breath infects the air of a cow-house in which there were other 
animals already predisposed to this, or similar maladies. On the other 
hand, he acknowledges that many cases usually appear at the same time ? 
and in cattle that have been widely separated from each other. 

" M. Lecoq has very clearly stated the chief causes of this disease,, 
in addition to which it has clearly an epidemic character. There 
are certain states of the atmosphere which call into action these lurking 
predispositions to disease, found most in the stranger cattle, but some- 
times in the natives (for bad management, and hoose, and pleurisy exist 
too much every where,) but there is not yet sufficient evidence of the 
contagious nature of all these affections of respiratory organs. He, how- 
ever, can never err who has recourse to the careful use of every precau- 
tionary measure." 

So that down to 1833, the result of Lecoq's investigations, 
which are endorsed by Youatt as late as 1844, seems to have 
been this : — that the disease is thought to be " clearly epidemic,' r 
and there is a great deal to be said in favor of its being conta- 
gious. There have been coincidences which go to prove con- 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 243 

tagion ; and there have been many eases of disease appearing 
at the same time, though widely separated from each other. 

The other authority to which I allude, is that contained in 
the Veterinarian for 1854, edited by Mr. Percivall — an article 
commencing on page 3o5 of vol. 27, entitled, " General Report 
of the Labors of the Scientific Commission, instituted by the 
Minister of Commerce, Agriculture and Public Works, for the 
investigation of the epizootic peripneumonia of cattle." 

That was a French commission : — and the report, after giving 
some account of the history of the disease, under the head of 
" General Resume of the Experiments instituted by the Scien- 
tific Commission on Peripneumonia," gives an account of 
experiments tried by the committee for ascertaining the influ- 
ence which the organs of a healthy animal are capable of exer- 
cising m the course of cohabitation with animals of the same 
species suffering under peripneumonia. 

u In instituting these experiments, the committee proposed the solution 
of the following questions : — 

u L. Is epizootic peripneumonia susceptible of being transmitted by 
cohabitation from sick to sound animals? 

u 2. In the case where eontagion is found operative in this manner, do 
all the animals of the kind living in the same habit of contagion, contract 
die disease, or are there some who resist its influence ? And, in the 
latter case^ what proportion of animals fall sick, and what remain 
onaffected? 

u 3. Among those which contract the disease, how many recover their 
Iiealtli, and in what conditions ? How many sink from the disease ? 

•" 4. Are there any animals of the bovine species who prove decidedly 
opposed to the contagion of peripneumonia ? 

" 5. Are animals of this species preserved for the future from being 
attainted with this disease, when after a first cohabitation they have pre- 
sented no more than symptoms of slight indisposition, and that consisting 
principally in a cough more or less persistent ? 

" 6. Are those animals who have contracted for the first time, more 
susceptible of taking the disease again ? 

" In order to obtain the solution of these questions, the committee have 
submitted to different proofs of cohabitation, 46 animals of the bovine 
breed, perfectly sound in health, and in such conditions of superintendence 
that they have never been exposed to the influence of contact of animals 
affected with peripneumonia. 

" These 46 subjects of experiment have been disposed of as follows :• — 



244 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

20, at Pomeraye (first experiment). 

2, at Charentonneau (second experiment). 
13, at Maisons-Alfort (third experiment). 
11, at Charentonneau (fourth experiment). 

" Of this number, — 

21 animals have appeared insusceptible to contagion in a first trial of 

cohabitation, 

10 have manifested transient indisposition, 

15 have taken the disease. 

# 

46 total. 

"Of the 15 sick of peripneumonia contracted through cohabitation, 11 
were cured, and 3 died. 

Consequently, the number of resisting animals, to ap- 
pearance, on the first trial of cohabitation, rose to . 45*65 out of 100 
The animals insusceptible, to .... . 21*73 " 
That of animals sick and cured, at ... . 23*91 " 
That of animals dead, at . . . . . .8*69 " 

" But if, in place of reporting on the external appearances of animals 
exposed to cohabitation, we take into consideration the results afforded 
through the autopsies, which have demonstrated that six out of the eleven 
animals placed under experiment at the farm of Charentonneau (4th 
experiment) had contracted the disease, we should find that we must 
reckon six animals more as falling sick after cohabitation, and six at 
least as resisting (contagion), which gives, in point of fact, the following 
results : — 

15 resisting, 32*61 out of 100. 

10 insusceptible, . , . . 21*73 " 

17 sick cured, .... 36*95 

4 dead, 8*98 



46 . 100*27 

" Of these, 42 animals who were exposed to the first proofs of cohabi- 
tation made at Pomperaye and Charentonneau, and which escaped with 
their health or recovery, 18 were submitted a second time to the same 
proofs, and of these 18, 4 a third time. 

" These 18 animals became disposed of as follows : — 

5 had contracted the disease at the end of the first cohabitation, and were 

cured, 
9 proved refractory to the first influence of contagion, 
4 experienced no other indisposition than that arising from the first 

cohabitation. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 245 

" As to the 4 animals who were submitted to the first cohabitation, they 
made part of the category of those who had contracted the disease from 
the first contact, and who were cured. 

"None of the 18 subjects submitted to these fresh proofs, in such con- 
ditions, either contracted peripneumonia or presented even the slightest 
symptoms of indisposition. 

" From results obtained from such experiments of cohabitation, the com- 
mittee have drawn the following conclusions : — 

"1st. That the epizootic peripneumonia of horned cattle is susceptible 
of transmitting itself through cohabitation, from sick animals to those in 
health of the same species. 

" 2d. That all animals exposed to contagion through cohabitation do 
not contract peripneumonia ; there being some among them who thor- 
oughly resist the contagious influence ; and others who do but expe- 
rience, under such influence, a slight indisposition and one of very short 
duration. 

" 3d. Among the animals who contracted the disease, some recovered, 
and obtained with their recovery every external appearance of health, 
while others succumbed. 

" 4th. Such animals as presented symptoms but of slight indisposition 
after a first cohabitation, appeared preserved by this trial, for the future, 
against other attacks of peripneumonia. 

" 5th. Animals who had been for once attacked with pneumonia, did 
not appear susceptible again of its influence. 

" Such are the general conclusions which the committee believed itself 
authorized to draw from such experiments of contagion through cohabi- 
tation. As to the questions of ascertaining what may be, in a herd 
exposed to the influence of contagion, the relative proportions of animals 
remaining resistent to contagion, of those who become indisposed, and, 
lastly, of those who contract pneumonia — and among these last what is 
the relation of the dead to the recoveries, — the committee have not con- 
templated uniting so large an assemblage of facts, in order to come to a 
conclusion that might express absolutely the conditions habitually passing 
in practice. It has confined itself here to the ascertainment of the 
amounts resulting from particular experiments. 

" From a summing up of these experiments, we find that 45 animals 
out of 100 have contracted peripneumonia through cohabitation, and 
that 24 have experienced slight indisposition: to resume, 65 have felt 
the influence of contagion in slight degrees, and 32 have shown them- 
selves refractory to it. 

" The proportion of animals who have recovered every appearance 
externally of health, after having experienced the disease, has been at 
the rate of 83 out of 100 sick, and that of those who have died, of 17 
per cent." 



246 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

I have taken the liberty tp read this part of the Report of 
that Commission in extenso, for two reasons ; first, because it 
illustrates what is something like a scientific investigation ; 
and, secondly, because the result of the investigation, carefully 
and scientifically performed, is so encouraging to the farmer, 
and those interested in the preservation of stock. 

I am not a farmer, Mr. President, although I was born and 
bred on a farm, and hope, some day, to be able to return to it. 
I suppose I have as much interest, in my feelings, in the pros- 
perity and welfare of that part of the industrious and productive 
community, as any one : for, in truth, the only brother I have 
in the world is a farmer, and earns his living on a farm. And 
I do not know that I have any relative who is so unfortunate 
as to have to gain a living wholly apart from rural pursuits. I 
feel, therefore, greatly interested in the result of this experi- 
ment which is being made in Massachusetts ; and, by reason of 
that interest, I have been the more willing to accept the invita- 
tion of some gentlemen, to contribute, if I may be able to do 
so, professionally and as their counsel, somewhat toward the 
success of the investigation of the Committee, by assisting its 
labors. 

And I am always # strongly impressed with this conviction, 
a priori, that there is no such thing as an absolutely remediless 
evil in the universe of God, — certainly no more in physical 
nature than in the world of morals and ideas. There is no 
falsehood, in thought, not susceptible of conviction and correc- 
tion ; there is no error in the domain of ideas, about which 
men may not be set right, and as to which they may not be 
sometime able to arrive at the truth, if they pursue its investi- 
gation. And there is no evil, existing in the material universe, 
contradictory to those ordinary laws — which are only the com- 
mon and normal manifestation of Providence itself through the 
world of nature, — none, which is not curable. The evil is not 
itself a part of the law ; it is only an exception to the law. 
And, therefore, I think there is no disease affecting man or 
animals or vegetation, which is not susceptible of being, to a 
greater or less extent, satisfactorily overcome. I do not mean 
to say that I am so much of an optimist that I believe that, this 
side of the millennium in the future, or this side of the fabled 
millennium of the past — the Golden Age — we can ever arrive at 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 247 

a state of physical perfection, — of perfect material happiness in 
the physical world. But I do not believe that there is sent 
among men any evil which human science, human knowledge, 
carefully applied to the facts presented, may not combat, with 
an amount of practical success which will amply and completely 
reward all their exertions. 

I do not believe that this disease sent among cattle is intended 
to destroy and sweep off from the face of the earth, nor from the 
face of any considerable portion of the earth, the whole bov.ne 
race, any more than I suppose that smallpox or malaria was sent 
with the intention, on the part of Providence, that it should 
extirpate humanity from the face of the globe. 

Nor do I suppose, on the other hand, that the careless, impa- 
tient, thoughtless, or frightened observations of a few persons, 
limited to a few localities, made under unfavorable circum- 
stances, in moments of excitement and panic, even though the 
observers may be persons of the greatest intelligence, and in 
communities of the greatest intelligence, will afford much more 
information, of a satisfactory and reliable character, than the 
information which we might derive from a committee of North 
American Indians who might report to us concerning the 
origin, progress, fatality, and means of cure of the smallpox, 
when it should be prevailing among them. The truth is, I 
suppose, that it is only after communities have had their atten- 
tion called, for the first time, to such phenomena as this, that 
they ever begin carefully to investigate them; audit is only 
after such diseases have prevailed some considerable time, that 
they are able m accumulate an amount of knowledge suffi- 
ciently ample and sufficiently various to secure any useful 
generalization from these facts. And it seems to me that the 
dangerous error into which we in Massachusetts are liable now 
to fall, is the mistaking of coincidences for consequences. 
And that is an error the most natural into which the mind 
ever falls, when dealing with a variety of facts. Nothing is 
more deceptive than a series of coincidences from which we 
leap at once to the conclusion that the thing which followed 
after another thing was, of necessity, its consequence, and 
that the preceding fact was the cause of that which came 
after. 



248 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA, 

Now, — if the Committee will indulge me with making a 
single suggestion, — it seems to me quite clear that the result, 
of this investigation, thus far, has convinced us all of the 
truth of what Mr, Walker said in the outset. In reply to the 
question, " Have you formed any opinion in regard to the 
time necessary for the development of the disease after expo- 
sure ? " — his answer was, "In regard to that, we have not. 
And it is the want of knowledge of the laws of the disease, that 
is the great obstacle to our operations. And it is the most 
alarming fact in regard to the disease, that it does not seem to 
be understood at all in this country, nor even in Europe, where 
they have had it for two hundred years." 

And Mr. Walker informed the Committee, also, that " the 
Commissioners became entirely dissatisfied with the current 
condition of things, because other measures beside merely 
killing and burying, are quite as necessary and important. 
And when they arrived at that point, and discovered to what 
extent the infection had spread, they stopped killing the 
herds." 

Now, it seems to be the most natural remark, in view of this 
testimony, of the conclusions which follow from it, and of the 
opinion expressed by the Commissioners, that it is time that the 
laws of this disease were understood, or, at least, that a thorough, 
honest, scientific, and persistent effort should be made to dis- 
cover them. And if there is any place in the world where that 
effort can be made with reasonably probable success, I think it 
is here, in Massachusetts. We are not encumbered here with 
the slow and ponderous legislation of older countries. The 
legislature is convened, here, upon a notice of a few days, and 
upon the application of a few persons ; and the inquiries of 
intelligent minds, from every district in the Commonwealth, 
are brought directly to bear upon this subject, which is so 
interesting to the pecuniary interests of the larger portion of 
the people, and which involves so much of the welfare of the 
people. And we have, here, within tiiis Commonwealth, men, 
too, who, by natural capacity, by long previous study, by apti- 
tude for the inquiry, by willingness to enter into detail, and by 
the training which gives them facility in research, are preemi- 
nently fitted for the task of investigation, and whose presence 
among us would enable the government of Massachusetts to 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 249 

secure, to this people and to humanity, the services of as able 
and as satisfactory a commission as could be organized any 
where in the scientific world. It even happens, if you will 
recollect, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that Massachusetts 
seems to have raked over, to have spread a drag-net, over the 
whole world of science, and have swept within its borders men 
of the highest capacity, — men not only of Yankee, not only of 
American, but of foreign birth. We have, lying behind us, so 
far as it is collected and preserved, the history of two hundred 
years of this disease. We have the benefit of the researches of 
men like Lecoq, by men such as those who have formed the 
French commission, by men such as have been, from time to 
time, commissioned by the British parliament, the Danish and 
Belgian governments ; and we have the whole world of inquiry 
and research, over which to spread our investigations. Why, 
then, Mr. Chairman, should we not, with all this treasury of 
the. past to draw from, with all these workers and del vers and 
thinkers in the world of science to press into the service, and 
with Massachusetts itself transformed, in the course of Provi- 
dence, into a hospital, where the examination can be best car- 
ried on, — why should we not organize a commission, or series 
of commissions, charged with the duty, by actual, thorough, 
scientific experiment, of reducing this disease down to its laws? 
It must have laws. There is no such thing in the universe as 
even a disease, I suppose, — which is itself such a contradiction 
of nature, — not governed by some laws. The most abnormal 
thing, even, has a law : and this disease, as well as others, must 
be hemmed in within certain possible limitations of spread, of 
disaster, and of deadliness, which may be discovered, or the 
discovery of which may at least be approximated. It must be 
subject to some limitations ; it must be subject to the possibility 
of some remedial process, which may, at least, by controlling, 
limit or alleviate, if not cure. One would suppose it must be, as 
smallpox, and many other diseases, are, capable of prevention. 
At least, it is worth while to ascertain, if possible, whether it 
may not be checked in its progress by some means, applied 
either directly to the infected or to the suspected subject ; or 
by means of some disinfectant which may be applied to hun- 
dreds. But nobody knows, as yet, any thing in regard to this. 
Professor Youatt goes no further than Lecoq. Iii 1833, he 

32 



250 PLEURO-PNEUMONI A t 

thought it was epidemic, and lie " kind o 7 " thought it wag 
contagious. He knew that animals brought in direct contact 
with others were likely to have the disease 7 and thought it was 
more severe in proportion to the nearness of the approach to 
the infected animal. And yet, he was obliged to confess that 
the disease &i& spring up spontaneously and sporadically, with- 
out any cause arising from any positive and known contagion* 
whatsoever. Our Commissioners, and our own men of science? 
whether physicians, or others, who have given, the subject some 
investigation during the short period which has illustrated the 
history of the disease here, in Massachusetts, have not been able. 
nor have they undertaken, nor has the legislature of Massa- 
chusetts, as yet, charged them with the duty of undertakings 
to classify all cases, or to try experiments such as those which 
were tried by the French commission. The most they have 
undertaken to do, was to trace, if possible, from one case of 
the existence of disease, its own private history, back to some 
other case of existence of the same disease. But nobody has- 
yet tried the experiment of operating in the counter direction 7 
of proving the supposed rule of infection, or contagion, by 
subjecting any considerable number of sound and healthy 
animals to the presence and contact of supposed infection, or 
contagion, for the purpose of seeing whether or not the rule will 
work the other way. And unless that sort of careful, exact? 
and specific experimenting is pursued,, the mind arrives, at last, 
at no more exact and scientific knowledge than did the English 
student of whom the old story is told, — that he undertook to 
walk the hospitals of Paris, for the purpose of observing dis- 
ease, and especially fever ; and, following after a learned phy- 
sician, in his visits to his patients in the hospital, he observed,. 
one day, a man sick with typhoid fever, and that the physician 
ordered him to be served with some frog soup. Thereupon he 
entered in his diary, " Patient sick with typhoid fever. Per- 
scription, frog soup ;"' and he watched that patient until he was 
discharged, well ; and then, in his diary, reported the case as- 
cured, and generalized as follows : " Typhoid fever is cured 
by frog soup." He went home, to London, and in the first 
case of typhoid fever which came under his own immediate 
care, he administered the same remedy: and the coincidence 
in that case, whether it was a " consequence " or not I don't 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 251 

know, not being a doctor, was that the patient died ; and the 
student corrected his diary thus : " In typhoid fever, frog soup 
cures a Frenchman, hut kills an Englishman." Now, that is a 
story of some old joker, which does, in truth, after all, illus- 
trate the danger of attempting to generalize laws, or even rules T 
of the natural world, from any inconsiderable number of cases, 
and the danger of undertaking to draw your inferences in a 
direct line, without reversing your process. And there is also 
this danger, which the inquiry always encounters, the danger of 
being controlled, in. our inquiries, as, I suppose, we almost 
always unconsciously are, by our own pre-conceptions. The 
most natural thing for all men, as all history shows, in the 
presence of a new and wide-spread disease, is to conclude, at 
once, that the disease has some characteristic not only alarm- 
ing, but mysterious ; and almost always, to suppose that it 
must, of necessity, be imparted from one person to another. 
And in the progress of the human mind, through all the ages 
of medical inquiry, down to the present, so far as I, — who have 
never read medical books, but only those which are comprehen- 
sible by laymen, and common minds like my own, — have been 
able to perceive, the tendency always is, not only to look upon 
the malady with alarm, but to suppose it to possess some 
peculiar and occult danger, in itself. And yet, it has almost 
always turned out, in the history of such cases, that, with the 
progress of observation and theory, of inquiry and experience, 
that after a few years have passed, the result has been to show 
that the disease was no more mysterious than is all disease. In 
a very small proportion, I believe, do they ever prove to be 
infectious or contagious. In a short time the panic goes by, 
and men resume their ordinary avocations, and their ordinary 
confidence in man and nature and God. 

Now, I am not bold enough to think it possible for me to say 
any thing which would aid the wisdom of this Committee. 
Therefore, I do not assume the task of attempting to invite the 
Committee to any particular course of legislation, in the detail ; 
but I beg leave to suggest, in the general, simply, that inquiry 
is the first duty, and that it seems to me there ought to be a 
commission, of ample powers, and ample in point of numbers 
as well as in the personnel of which it shall be composed, and 
ample in point of powers, to seize this opportunity of submit- 



252 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA, 

ting the disease to the fullest investigation possible to modern 
science ; and, secondly, that this or some other commission 
should have some general powers, not too closely limited, some 
powers with a pretty wide margin, which they might be allowed 
to exercise, as the developments of days and weeks and months, 
during the recess of the legislature, may show the necessity, 
for the purpose of controlling, should their discretion thus 
dictate, the ingress, egress, and progress of cattle, whether 
healthy or diseased; and of making sanitary regulations and 
examinations; not, however, it seems to me, exercising itself, 
full and complete control over the whole domain of the Com- 
monwealth, for that would seem hardly possible to any one 
Board of moderate size ; but holding a sort of supervisory or 
appellate power over the local authorities. And I would sug- 
gest, that for this purpose, the board of selectmen for example, 
in each town, should be empowered to exercise a certain meas- 
ure of control over the movement of cattle within and through 
their towns, and the management of diseased or exposed cattle 
within their respective domains. If that were done, you would 
have the local authorities directly interested to examine care- 
fully within their own dominions, and under the influence of 
the public opinion of their own neighborhoods ; and they, in 
their turn, if led too far astray by momentary panic or error 
in their neighborhoods, would be controlled by the appellate 
power of the Commission, and also, they would be directed by 
them, if found careless, lax, unfaithful, or unwilling to exer- 
cise their powers. If you had one Board to exercise this 
power, similar to the Commission now in existence, and another 
to pursue this subject as matter of scientific inquiry, perhaps 
these two Boards would mutually act and re-act upon each 
other, assisting the labors and studies of each other. I desire 
to speak diffidently as to the question whether it is best to 
create two separate commissions, or otherwise. Other gentle- 
men, of more experience and better judgment in these matters, 
will be able to suggest, upon this point, with more positiveness 
and pertinence than myself. 

That something should be done, public expectation requires ; 
that, if possible, a most exact and intelligent examination 
should be made, duty to ourselves, to the people, to posterity, 
to science and humanity, certainly demands. Whether there 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 253 

should be any thing done like that which has hitherto been 
attempted,! mean the effort to limit this disease by the destruc- 
tion of exposed animals, I certainly am compelled to doubt. 
Hopeless cases of disease, it is quite easy to see, can best be 
met by the destroying axe or knife ; but as long as cases are 
hopeful, at least, so long as herds or individual animals are 
only suspected, it seems 'that a wise man, — a man who believes 
that nature is governed by laws, and that in the presence of 
civilized man almost every physical evil recedes when treated 
with a firm will and strong hand, — will be inclined seriously to 
doubt the policy of such a heroic remedy. 

I am much obliged to the Committee for listening to these 
hasty and not well-condensed remarks of one who owes his 
privilege to speak solely to the sufferance and complaisance of 
the gentlemen whom he has had the honor to address. 

Mr. Bird. — I have nothing to say, Mr. Chairman, except, 
that so far as I represent the Remonstrants, we are entirely sat- 
isfied with the position of the case as we are now. The exami- 
nation has shown me that the further we go, the less we are 
satisfied we know about it. And, therefore, I have nothing to 
suggest or recommend, except to agree entirely with what has 
been said, in regard to further investigation before we spend 
more money. 

Mr. Lathrop requested that the Commissioners should be 
allowed the privilege of presenting some additional remarks, 
through Dr. Loring. 

The Chairman. — I suppose it is generally understood that 
the Commissioners will be properly entitled to close the hear- 
ing before the Committee. If there be any other person or 
party, that may desire to come before the Committee, the pres- 
ent is the proper time. Otherwise, the Committee will hear the 
Commissioners. After the Commissioners have made their 
statement, the public investigation, before the Committee will 
be closed. 

No other person appearing before the Committee, 

Dr. George B. Loring, on behalf of the Commissioners, then 
addressed the Committee, as follows : — 



254 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee : — 

I am very sorry to feel compelled to trespass any further upon 
your time. For I have been with you, here, for many days, 
through along and tedious investigation ; and if the statement 
of the gentleman who preceded me is true, — that after all this 
trouble and all this expense, we have received no light upon 
this subject, — it seems to me an act of utter folly that we should 
waste any more time, to say nothing of money, in endeavoring 
to obtain that light. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not by any 
means satisfied that such is the case. I do not believe, Sir, 
that this is a panic, in the State of Massachusetts. I am not 
ready to believe that the citizens of Massachusetts are, as the 
gentleman who preceded me said, in the condition of North 
American Indians, in a state of terror ; or, as was stated here 
yesterday, that they are like the panic-stricken nations of old, 
who killed Jews and witches to stop distempers. I believe we 
are an intelligent, enlightened, cool, and dispassionate commu- 
nity, understanding what our pecuniary interests are, and 
abundantly capable of taking care of those interests. I am 
very sorry indeed, to ask you to listen to me : but I am satisfied 
that I can show you, not only that there is no panic here, but 
that the statement that there is nothing known of the disease, 
is not true. Much to my surprise, the testimony of one of the 
Commission, if I understood it, was given here, this afternoon, 
to the effect that the Commission ceased their labors for want 
of knowledge.* I wish the Committee, the State of Massachu- 
setts, and the country generally, to understand, that the 
Commission stopped their labors solely because they wanted 
assistance and legislation from the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts, to aid them in a work which they are entirely satisfied 
will be of the last importance to the agricultural interests of 
the Commonwealth, — the removal of this evil. 

The Commissioners have in every possible way endeavored, 
in coincidence with the newspapers of the Commonwealth, to 
lay before the people all the facts contained in this curious 
history of disease, — how it began in Belmont, and was trans- 
planted, almost in an hour, to Brookfield ; how it was hedged in 

* See, at the close of Dr. Loring's address, remarks of Mr. Walker, cor- 
recting the misapprehension as to the effect of his testimony in this particular. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 255 

at Belmont, and how, step by step, it spread all over Worcester 
County. You have all these facts before you, in this State, 
now. Will you listen to me for a few moments, while I state 
in brief, what the facts are upon the continent of Europe, where 
the disease has been known almost from its inception. 

I proceed to give the symptoms of the disease, as described 
by Prof. Simon ds : — 

" The early symptoms are not, as I have before observed, very easily 
recognized. They may sometimes consist of a little staring of the 
coat, a very slight cough, and a fastidious appetite ; and these indica- 
tions of disturbed health may show themselves more particularly at one 
period of the day than another. For example, in the first part of the 
morning supposing the animals are at pasture, you will find that they 
are standing under the hedge and not feeding so well as they will when 
the sun gets up ; they will then be mingling with the herd, apparently 
in good health ; or if animals are in sheds, we observe that at the first 
outset of the disease we have but little more evidence of their being 
affected than a slight cough. As the diseasea dvances, — and the rapidity 
of its advance may be governed by many secondary causes, such as 
living in a confined, badly ventilated, low, dirty building, — we find that a 
difficulty of breathing exists, the appetite is lost, the cough more fre- 
quent, the pulse increased, the coat staring, and so on. In a later stage 
the breathing will become more laborious, and the surface of the body 
will be irregular in its temperature. The horns, and the ears and legs 
may be cold while other parts of the body will be warm, rigors will 
now and then show themselves, the pulse will become more frequent, 
and the animal be found to grind its teeth as an expression of pain. 
The bowels at this stage of the disease become not unfrequ entry irreg- 
ular, and in fact diarrhoea sets in, and in the still later stages of the dis- 
ease the food which is in the stomach goes into a state of fermentation. 
The animal becomes tympanitic, the bowels more irregular, the body 
deadly cold, the pulse nearly indistinct and rapid ; and in this condition 
it dies." 

The disease at present existing in Massachusetts under the 
name of pleuro-pneumonia, appears to be identical with that 
which has been known in Europe for many years under the 
names of exudative and contagious pleuro-pneumonia — -differ- 
ing from the common pleuro-pneumonia chiefly in its conta- 
gious character. 



256 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

According to the report of the scientific commission insti- 
tuted by the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public 
Works of France, for the investigation of epizootic pleuro- 
pneumonia of cattle, this disease was " confined in former 
times to various isolated regions of the mountains of Piedmont, 
Switzerland, Franche Compte, the Jura, the Dauphiue, the 
Vosges, the Pyrennees, and the Auvergne ; and rarely made 
into the agricultural interests more than partial inroads, of 
which the public weal was hardly sensible," until after the 
year 1789. No contagious disease of cattle, so far as history 
shows, was pleuro-pneumonia, until that date. At that time, 
the barriers which had heretofore restricted the commercial 
relations between the different provinces of the country were 
removed. From this cause, and the moving of large droves 
of cattle from place to place, for the supply of troops during 
the state of warfare then existing, the disease was introduced 
into France, and still remains there, having extended over a 
large portion of that country. According to Dr. Willems, of 
Hasselt, " it has existed in Belgium since 1828, and came to 
that country from the south of Europe, from regions heretofore 
exposed, where it had existed for a very long time." It was 
introduced into Hasselt in 1836, by some cattle purchased in 
Flanders by the father of Dr. Willems, and is now known in 
that country under the name of exudative pleuro-pneumonia. 
Dr. W. also states " that the Belgian government spends yearly 
more than 100,000 francs ($20,000) as an indemnity for the 
infected cattle killed by the butchers. In the Low Countries, 
the losses are immense, and according to the reports of the 
French scientific commission on inoculation, "in two hundred 
and seventeen communes in the Northern Department alone, 
during a period of nineteen years, there were as many as 
as 52,000,000 francs (110,400,000) paid as indemnity" for the 
loss of cattle by the disease. In the report of the Minister of 
Agriculture, &c, alluded to above, it is stated : " Nor are most 
other countries of Europe more free from this pest than our 
own. In Italy, Sardinia, Switzerland, Austria, Hanover, Swe- 
den, Denmark, and of late in Holland and England, very 
considerable ravages have, the same as in France, inflicted 
public damage to an extent with difficulty to be repaired." 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 257 

According to Prof. Simonds, Veterinary Professor of the 
Royal Agricultural Society of England, considered the highest 
authority on these matters, a gentleman of attainments and 
skill, the disease appeared in England about the year 1841, and 
has continued with greater or less virulence to the present 
time. The pestilence which was introduced into England in 
1713, and again in 1744, by calves brought from Holland, is 
considered by the same authority to be identical with rinderpest 
or steppe murrain, a fatal and destructive malady still found in 
Central Europe. The disease now found in England, however, 
is the contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and it prevails in many 
parts of the kingdom. During the winter of 1859-60, " this 
fatal disease became very prevalent in the London dairies, more 
particularly on the south side of the Thames. The attacks are 
marked with much virulence, in a very great number of in- 
stances. And some of the public prints which have drawn 
attention to the matter, state that the fatality is as much as 95 
per cent." So much for the history of the disease in Europe. 
The facts with regard to its introduction and progress in our 
own State are too well known to need repetition here. 

Now, gentlemen, the first question which arises with reference 
to this disease, which has been discussed here from day to day, 
is, — is it contagious ? We have had testimony after testimony 
produced in its behalf, many historical facts in its favor, some 
remarks and opinions against it. Now there seems to be, in all 
this testimony, abundant evidence, which has been repeatedly 
laid before the public, that it is contagious, at least in its course 
here. The opinions of European investigators, on this head, 
will be of great service to us, in our own explorations. Pro- 
fessors Norton and Simonds say, in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, 
that sanitary measures should be adopted to prevent the u con- 
tagion,.-'' In the examination of Prof. Simonds before a com- 
mittee of the British Parliament in 1857, he says, in answer to 
a question with regard to the contagious nature of the disease : 
" I think pleuro-pneumonia is equally contagious with gland- 
ers." In reply to the question, " Is it your opinion that from 
the very first moment the disease attacks the animal, it is con- 
tagious ?" he replies, u I believe it is so." He says : " Pleuro- 
pneumonia I believe to be infectious ; that is to say, exhala- 
tions arising from the diseased animal's body become dissemi- 



258 PLUERO-PNEUMONIA. 

nated through an apartment where a certain number of animals 
are placed, and some of the animals susceptible take it." This 
view of the question is sustained by many observations made 
in this country. 

And I say, moreover, that wherever these exhalations are 
confined within barns either battened or kept close by clap- 
boards, they are infinitely more dangerous than in those barns 
of which I spoke when I asked Dr. Bigelow if common country 
barns and meadow hay would cure the disease. He said that 
well-ventilated barns would cure it. I asked him if such a 
barn as these, with the wind blowing through it, would answer 
the purpose. He thought not. I asked him if warm barns 
and English hay, would cure it, and he said he did not know. 

In the Report of the labors of the scientific commission, 
instituted by the Minister of Agriculture, &c, in France, the 
following statement is made. (1 heard the gentleman who pre- 
ceded me quote it, but I have it in brief, before me, and it goes 
directly to the result.) " From information collected by three 
of the inspectors, we learn that contagion was to be regarded 
as the principal cause and first producer of the malady, in 
localities where it prevailed, over a great extent of country." 
An experiment was instituted by this commission in order to 
decide the question whether the disease " can be transmitted 
from diseased, to sound animals by cohabitation ?" Forty-six 
animals were selected for the experiment, and the following 
were the results: twenty-one animals have appeared insuscep- 
tible to contagion in a first trial of cohabitation ; ten have man- 
ifested transient indisposition ; fifteen have taken the disease." 
And the general conclusions arrived at were : " that the epizo- 
otic peripneumonia of horned cattle is susceptible of trans- 
mitting itself, through cohabitation, from sick animals to those 
in health of the same species." Second. " That all animals 
exposed to contagion through cohabitation, do not contract 
peripneumonia, there being some among them which resist the 
contagious influence, and others which do but experience, 
under such influence, a slight indisposition, and one of very 
short duration." Third. " Among the animals which con- 
tracted the disease, some recovered, and obtained with their 
recovery every external appearance of health, while others 
succumbed." Fourth. "Such animals as presented symptoms 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 259 

but of slight indisposition, appeared preserved by this trial, for 
the future, against other attacks of peripneumonia." Fifth. 
" Animals which had been for once attacked with peripneumonia, 
did not appear susceptible again to its influence." 

In Holstein, Mecklenburg, Lubec and its territory, Hamburg 
and its territory, the belief in its contagion is so strong that 
the slaughtering of all diseased and exposed animals is con- 
sidered the only effectual means of staying its progress. 

In September, 1857, the disease appeared in Melbourne, 
Australia, having been brought there by cattle imported from 
Europe ; and so thoroughly satisfied were the colonists of the 
contagion, after a most careful investigation, that the herd into 
which it was introduced were slaughtered at once; and it was 
resolved at a public meeting, after hearing the report of a 
veterinary surgeon ordered to examine the diseased herd, that, 
" It is the opinion of this meeting that the disease in question 
is contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and that at present it exists on 
Mr. Boadle's farm." And "that, as the disease called pleuro- 
pneumonia, if allowed to spread, will be very disastrous to the 
colony, tins meeting is of the opinion that the cattle should 
be purchased, for the purpose of being destroyed." The 
measures proposed by the meeting were unanimously adopted. 

Perhaps gentlemen will say that these people were insane, 
that they had a panic, that they ought to have called a scientific 
commission to sit around Mr. Boadle's farm, six months, and 
investigate the subject of the disease, — that the time had 
arrived when Australia could learn something about the dis- 
ease and apply that knowledge to its cure, — that there was a 
golden opportunity, which Australia would lose if they extir- 
pated the disease. No, gentlemen ! the cattle were bought up 
and extirpation applied as the remedy for the disease, and it 
was cured. Do you not wish that this same remedy had been 
applied here, before the disease went from Belmont? Mr. 
Chenery said he was damaged to the extent of fifteen or six- 
teen thousand dollars, by the visit of the Commissioners to his 
Darn. Would not the Commonwealth have given him a hun- 
dred thousand dollars, to have driven his cattle out of the barn, 
and slaughtered them, at the commencement of this history ? 

All these conclusions, drawn from the history of the disease 
in Europe, are founded upon facts. I do not know of a single 



260 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

fact that has been stated here, I do not know of one brought 
up by the Commission, I do not know of one presented in the 
newspapers, or produced in any form whatever, that does not 
tally with these facts which I have collected from the history of 
the disease in Europe. 

In the Veterinarian of 1845 is an abstract of the history of 
pleuro- pneumonia in the British empire, by Mr. Copeman, of 
Walpole, England, which will illustrate its contagious character 
there, and will remind many of its progress in this country : — 

" This disease does not appear to have entered Scotland until April 
1843, (Veterinarian, vol. xvi. p. 278). Mr. Fulton, of Wigtown, in a 
communication to Professor Dick, of Edinburgh, states that this disease 
had just made its appearance in that vicinity ; and the professor, in his 
answer, does not mention having seen a single case, at least in Scotland. 
However, in the same volume, p. 282, we find that it has been close upon 
the borders for a long time. Mr. Carlisle, of Wigton, in Cumberland, 
thus writes : " Its first appearance in this part of the country was 
among some Irish cattle ; and one or two of my employers p urchased 
some of the infected ones, not knowing that any thing was amiss at the 
time. They were sent off to pasture on the farm, and, in two or three 
days, one of them was observed to be unwell. He was brought home, 
bled, and physicked, but soon died. Little notice was taken of him, and 
his remains unattended to. In the course of a short time, two more 
became ill : they were brought home, and also died. Presently the 
disease showed itself among his other stock. This was in December 
last, and he has since lost nearly thirty head of cattle, not more than five 
or six recovering. The treatment was strictly depletive." 

" Thus we are led to infer that this disease commenced in Ireland ; and, 
as most of the Irish cattle are imported at Liverpool, we first hear of its 
existence in that part of our isle. In a short time it finds its way into 
Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Middlesex ; but is not heard of 
in any of these parts until 1842, although it had been raging in Ireland 
for nearly twelve months before. Thence it, not very rapidly, spread 
over almost every part of this country, but did not reach Scotland for 
nearly another twelve months. 

" I shall now, in as few observations as possible, endeavor to give the 
history of most of the cases that have occurred in this neighborhood ; 
and in doing this, I hope to be enabled to adduce sufficient facts to enable 
the most sceptical to appreciate the infectious or non-infectious character 
of this disease, and also to demonstrate the truth of the assertions, that 
pleuro-pneumonia was introduced into this country by Irish cattle. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 261 

" Case 1. — The disease first made its appearance in this neighborhood 
in May, 1843, at an extensive farm, called Scot's-hall, in the occupation 
of Mr. C — , of D — . Mr. C. had purchased thirty year-old Irish cattle 
(steers) at Norwich stock market, in April. They were at the time in 
apparent health, and were sent to the marsh. About a fortnight after, 
one of them was observed to be unwell. He was taken home and died. 
On the following day, upon a post mortem examination it was evident 
that he had died of pleuro-pneumonia. 

" On the 11th of May a second was attacked, and by the 1st of June 
five others. The treatment of all was strictly antiphilogistic, and they 
all died, after from a few days to a fortnight's illness. In an adjoining 
house, but separated from it by a yard and wall, the dairy cows, consist- 
ing of thirteen in number, were milked, and were at the time considered 
quite safe: however, on the 11th of June, one of them was attacked, and 
in a few days another. The Irish beasts were all coughing, and, on 
being closely examined, evident symptoms of pleuro-pneumonia were 
detected in nearly all of them. They, with the two cows, were immedi- 
ately sent to another farm about a mile and a half distant from the 
marshes : every attention was here paid to their general comfort, and 
the medical treatment altogether altered, consisting of remedies similar 
to those advised in the following pages. Several of the Irish were many 
weeks in recovery, and the two cows died. As several of the other cows 
were evidently infected, Mr. C. determined upon selling them all. They 
were accordingly sent to market, and sold. 

" Mr. C. had twenty-four short-horns in another marsh, and his neigh- 
bors had also in the surrounding marshes cattle of all ages, but not a 
single one was attacked with this disease during the summer. 

" Case 2. — Mr. G- — , of H — Hill house, bought of a stock dealer at 
Norwich, fifty-three two-and-a-half-year-old short-horns on July 15th, 
1843. They were in excellent condition, and to all appearance in 
health ; they were sent home to his farm, and, on the following day, 
down to the marsh. • On the next morning one of them was found dead, 
and in the course of a fortnight six others were attacked. Being for- 
ward in condition, they were sold to the butchers ; but the lungs and 
chests of three of them were so much diseased, that the fore-quarters 
were of no value. The remaining forty-six were sold to the butchers, 
and, in a few weeks, all were killed. Several of them were hoosing. 
Their lungs were found more or less diseased, while the lungs of several 
others appeared perfectly sound. 

" On the following Saturday, July 2 2d, Mr. G. bought twenty-three 
others, all nearly fat, and looking exceedingly healthy ; but the man who 
drove them home observed that they were nearly all hoosing. They 
were placed in a marsh by themselves. On the 4th of August one of 



262 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

them was attacked, and after a few days illness, died. After this several 
others were attacked, and, being fat, were slaughtered. 

" Case 3. — Mr. F — , of N — , bought at Norwich stock market thirty 
Irish budds. After about a fortnight, July 29th, three of them were 
attacked with this disease, and, in the following month, fourteen others. 
They had been put into the yards with the cows, and several of them 
became infected. Fresh cases were occurring almost every week. Mr. 
F. finally determined to sell the whole off the farm. He then tarred the 
boards, washed them, &c. After several months he bought other neat 
stock, and all of them have been healthy. 

" Case 4. — Mr. G — , of C — , bought at Norwich market, in July, 1843, 
fifteen year-old Irish steers. During the two following months, eight of 
them died of this disease. They were attended by a cow-leech. The 
treatment was strictly depletive. The remaining seven were sent to 
Norwich market, and sold. After this, two bullocks were attacked ; they 
were Scots, nearly fat, and were slaughtered : the right lobe of one of 
their lungs weighed fifty-three pounds. In October two others were 
also attacked : here the beasts were lean : they were treated as hereafter 
directed, and both recovered. 

" Case 5. — Mr. G — , of H — Hall, bought of an Irish stockhealer, on 
August 22d, twelve Irish beasts, consisting of nine year-old steers, and 
three two-year-old heifers. They were at the time in apparent health, 
and were not allowed to pasture with any other stock. On September 3d, 
one of the steers was found almost dead. He died on the following day. 
On the 27th, one of the heifers was attacked. I now closely examined 
all the rest, who were looking very fresh in condition ; but, on putting 
them in quick motion, the respiration of two of them was much more 
than naturally increased, and they frequently coughed. These symp- 
toms, with the characters of the sounds furnished by ausculation, con- 
firmed, in my opinion, the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in its incipient 
stage ; of which I apprised Mr. G., who, rather than hazard the safety 
of his other cattle, ordered the heifer to be immediately killed. On the 
same day he sold the remaining ten to a dealer, and, after passing through 
two or three hands, they again came into this neighborhood. Mr. F., of 
U., not more than two miles distant from Mr. G., bought them and turned 
them into his yards with his cows, &c. On the 6th of October, the two 
I have mentioned above, as being infected, were severely attacked, and 
died in a few days. 

" The dealer who sold them to Mr. F. took the others back, and sent 
them to Norwich market, and sold them ; but it was afterwards discov- 
ered that a cow and heifer which had been with them in the yards were 
infected ; the cow being attacked on the 25th, and the heifer on the 29th 
of October. They, however, eventually recovered. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 263 

" Case 6. — Mr. C — , of U — , bought six two-year-old Devon steers of 
a dealer early in September, 1843. They were turned upon a piece of 
aftermath. They were all observed to have a short, dry cough : still 
they improved in condition up to October the 8th, when one was attacked 
with pleuro-pneumonia, and on the following clay the other five were 
become ill. They were all severely attacked. Two died, and the rest 
recovered. They have been at grass all the summer, and are now excel- 
lent beef. 

" Case 7. — Mr. N — , of Y — Hall, bought of a dealer at Norwich, 
October 7th, 1843, five short-horn bullocks, who were looking healthy 
and very fresh. In the following week he lost one, that lived only a few 
days after he was attacked ; the others were frequently hoosing. He 
had them all killed by the butcher, and the right lung of all was found 
much diseased. 

" Case 8. — S. G — , Esq., of T — •, bought at Norwich twenty, three- 
year-old Scots in good condition. In the latter part of November two 
of them died very suddenly of this disease, and, a few days afterwards, 
six others were attacked. One died, and the rest recovered. None of 
them had any communication with the other stock upon the farm ; but, 
by accident, after the third beast was flayed, two of the cows and a heifer 
strayed into the place, and smelt at the skin and carcass, and very soon 
became almost frantic. They were kept apart from their companions, 
and, fifteen days afterwards, one of the cows was attacked with pleuro- 
pneumonia. On the twentieth day the heifer, and on the thirty-first day 
the other cow became ill. The last died, but the other two recovered. 

" Case 9. — Mrs. B — , of A — , purchased of a dealer, in November, 
six short-horn steers. About three weeks afterwards two of them were 
attacked. The first died, and the other was slaughtered. A cow and 
heifer that were tied up in an adjoining house became infected, and the 
cow, after a very protracted illness, died. 

"Case 10.— J. G. C— , Esq., of U— , on the 6th of January, 1844, 
bought eight three-year-old Irish beasts at Norwich market. They were 
put up to fatten at an off-farm, and were doing well up to the loth of 
February, when one was attacked, and, after lingering about a fortnight, 
died. Three others were shortly afterwards attacked, but, as they were 
fair beef, were sent to the butchers : the right lung of one of these 
weighed nearly forty pounds, although he had been killed as soon as the 
disease was fully detected. As symptoms of the disease, i. e., hoosing, 
were present in the other four, they were taken to Norwich, and sold. 

"Case 11. — July 3d, 1844. — I was this morning requested by Mr. L., 
of L — , to attend a cow laboring under pleuro-pneumonia. Mr. L., who 
is a very intelligent farmer, gave me the following history of the rise and 
progress of this disease upon his farm. Early in December, 1843, he 



264 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

purchased of a stockdealer two Irish bullocks, and tied them up to fatten 
with four out of a lot of eight short-horns bought of a neighbor. The 
other four were sent directly to another farm ; and they all fattened and 
did well. He observed that the Irish beasts were frequently hoosing ; 
still they got fat quickly, until the 20th of February, when one was 
attacked. He was immediately removed from the others, and died in a 
few days. Mr. L. now observed that the short-horns began hoosing, 
and on the loth of March the one in the adjoining stall to the Irish 
beast refused his food. He was directly slaughtered. His left lung 
was very much enlarged, firmly adherent to his ribs, and that side of the 
chest contained about one gallon of fluid. On the 15th the other Irish 
bullock fell off his food, and he was slaughtered. In the course of the 
following month the other short-horns were attacked, and slaughtered. 
Mr. L., who, I might observe, was a firm non-infectionist, had placed in 
the adjoining yard a bull, a steer, and a heifer in calf; and after the 
death of the Irish beast the bull was tied up in his place. He was 
attacked next after the bullocks, and a short time after him the steer. 
They were both slaughtered. The heifer escaped, and has since calved. 
The stock buildings are all closely connected. Next, one of the cows, 
out of a dairy of thirteen, was attacked. This occurred on the 1 6th of 
June, and she died on the 20th. She was, during her illness, attended 
by the same cow-leech as Mr. G., of C — , in Case 4, and was treated on 
the same system. The cow to which my attention was now called, his 
man had bled twice. She was evidently fast sinking, and died on the 
following day. Mr. L. has since sold all the remaining cows. 

" Observations : Norwich. — At this city the largest stockmarket in 
that part of the country is held on every Saturday ; and at two seasons 
of the year, viz., autumn and spring, great numbers of cattle, particu- 
larly Irish, are brought to this market ; in the former for the straw-yard, 
and in the latter for summer feeding in our marshy districts. They are 
brought here in large droves, and frequently several lots of cattle of dif- 
ferent breeds belong to the same dealer. Although they are separated 
while in the market, they are frequently drifted and pastured altogether: 
hence cattle of every breed have become infected." 

It has been proposed to treat this disease by medicinal agents. 
I am aware that the first impulse of mankind always is to find 
a remedy for every disease ; but I am also aware that the older 
and wiser the medical profession grows, the less faith and con- 
fidence they have in specifics for disease. A fair-minded and 
honorable and acute scientific gentleman, one of the most so in 
America, stood here to-day and stated to you, in so many words, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 265 

that lie did not know how far the profession of medicine could 
cure disease. Now we, who are moral and intellectual and 
accountable beings, may well live subject to such doubt as this. 
We have higher aims than animals, and we can afford to 
carry diseased bodies through this world, if we see fit. But not 
so with that portion of the agricultural interests of Massachu- 
setts which is really the living wealth of every farm in Massa- 
chusetts. If gentlemen here come forward and say they have 
no remedy for the cancer eating at the vitals of Massachusetts, 
is it worth while to waste any more words about the question ? 
I have never seen a remedial agent for it, — any thing which 
would economically, surely, and prudently stop the progress of 
the disease ; and I never heard of any. And I would ask the 
farmers of Massachusetts whether it is worth while to spend 
sixty, seventy, or a hundred thousand dollars, in experiments 
which, for all the practical purposes of agriculture, cannot be 
worth one dollar. It seems to me, Sir, this is poor business, 
this attempt to cure the disease. 

It is said no attempts have been made here, in Massachusetts, 
to cure the disease. And why ? Simply and solely because the 
legislature which passed the Act of extirpation were wise 
enough to know that when it is possible to scotch a snake, it is 
best to do that, instead of trifling with him. They knew it was 
the best plan to root the disease out ; and they appointed a 
Commission for that purpose. They knew that the best course 
was to eradicate it. It is said that it is a reproach to Massa- 
chusetts that there has been no attempt at the use of a medici- 
nal cure. It is not a reproach to Massachusetts ; it is a credit. 
What has been done in Europe ? Does any body know what 
can be done in the way of treatment for this disease in cattle ? 
. Various remedies have been, but with so little success that the 
disease is pronounced, by Professors Morton and Simonds,tobe 
incurable. The most approved practice in England, at the 
present day, is immediate extirpation. 

Dr. Willems says, in a memorial to the Minister of the Inte- 
rior of Belgium: "All curative measures, however curative 
they may be, are powerless in setting an obstacle to the evil ; 
and in repairing the considerable losses which it occasions every 
day. The beasts which are cured by treatment fall away rapidly 

34 



266 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

and recover but slowly and with difficulty from the attack they 
have sustained." 

The curative measure adopted in Holstein, Mecklenburg, 
Lubec, Hamburg, &c, where the disease prevails extensively, is 
immediate slaughter. 

Each veterinarian in Europe seems to adopt his own peculiar 
practice. And there as here, every form of alkali, acid, salt, 
tonic and purgative, with external applications, has been recom- 
mended and tried in vain. 

Blisters on the outside, and gin on the inside, — we have had 
them all recommended here ; and, I believe, they have all been 
tried in vain. For I never saw a single animal which came 
through this process of external blistering with Spanish flies, 
and internal blistering with Holland gin, that has been pro- 
nounced cured. 

Attempts have been made to stop the ravages of this disease. 
But how ? They say we should stop it by inoculation. This 
operation of inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia is a curiosity. 
It is a very remarkable affair. You know, perfectly well, that 
inoculation was practiced for many years previous to the great 
discovery of Jenner, for the prevention of smallpox. But every 
physician knows that the mortality by inoculation for smallpox 
was so great that people were afraid to be inoculated ; they were 
as willing to run their chance for the genuine disease as. to have 
it put into their system by physicians ! It was not until the dis- 
covery of the substitution, in the body, by legitimate laws, of 
one disease for another, according to the law that two diseases 
can hardly exist in the body at the same time, any more than 
two bodies can exist in the same space, that vaccination was 
introduced by Dr. Jenner, and succeeded. Now, let me tell 
you the difference, — let me tell you that there is no analogy 
between that vaccination, that scientific and valuable process 
introduced 'by Dr. Jenner, and this spurious process introduced 
by Dr. Willems for the prevention of the spread of this disease. 
Here is not another disease in the human system ; but, accord- 
ing to all accounts, it is shown that the introduction of a 
decayed and rotten portion of the serum, from the lungs of a dis- 
eased animal, into the tail of a healthy animal, destroys the tail 
of the healthy animal. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 267 

This operation was introduced in the year 1850, by Dr. Wil- 
lems, of Hasselt, Belgium, a district that has been peculiarly 
exposed to the disease. Since that time it has attracted the 
| attention of all Europe, and various commissions have been 
established to investigate and inquire into the effects which it 
produces. Among others, the English government appointed 
Professor Simonds a commissioner to proceed to Hasselt and 
report upon the operation as practised there, and also to experi- 
ment on the matter in England. Extracts from Professor 
Simonds' report, will serve to show the best conclusions arrived 
at, amidst a mass of conflicting testimony. 

" The commissioners here have spared no pains to arrive at the true 
value of the practice of inoculation, and their report, which extends 
over 176 pages 8vo., is full of most interesting and valuable details. In 
the majority of cases their experience fully coincides with our own, a 
fact to which we allude, in order to show the impartiality of their pro- 
ceedings, and which we regret to see has been called in question ! ! It is 
unnecessary to select cases from their report, or to follow the commis- 
sioners through their scientific reasonings on the subject ; and, therefore, 
we shall in this place content ourselves by giving the conclusions to 
which they have arrived. 

" ' From the preceding facts,' says the report, ' the commission con- 
cludes : — 

" ' That inoculation with the liquid extracted from a hepatized lung, 
the result of exudative pleuro-pneumonia, is not a certain preservative 
against the malady. 

" * That the pneumonia succeeding inoculation may be produced several 
times in the same animal, which may or may not have been attacked 
with exudative pleuro-pneumonia. 

" ' That the two affections may exist together in the same individual 
and that considerable derangements are manifested in the inoculated 
part, whilst the morbid action of the lungs progresses towards a fatal 
termination. 

" ' As to the ascertaining whether inoculation really possesses a pre- 
servative power, and if so, in what proportion and for what length of 
time it imparts immunity to the animals subjected to it, these are ques- 
tions which can only be solved by further experience. 

" ' Read and approved at a meeting of the commission. 

"'Present— M. Verhezen, President; Bellefroid, Gluge, Theis, Deu- 
terluigne, Sauveur, Thiernesse, Members; Fallot, Marinus, Delegates 
from the Royal Academy of Medicine. 

"'Brussels, February 6, 1853.'" 



268 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

"On the 27th of November sixteen animals were selected for the 
operation ; of these, twelve were inoculated on the under surface of the 
tail, near to its extremity, by superficial punctures, and four by deep 
punctures through the skin, after the manner of Dr. Willems. It is 
necessary, however, to add that these deep punctures were cleanly made 
with a sharp lancet, and not with a bad-cutting i double-edged' scalpel, 
such as we saw forcibly thrust through the skin, and twisted about in the 
wound by Dr. Willems. This fact led to our remarking, in the former 
report, that ' surgical and scientific principles did not rule in these opera- 
tions ' on the Continent ; and it is essential to allude to the circumstance 
again, because of the results which attended on these our first experi- 
ments. 

"The material employed for the inoculation was the serous fluid 
pressed from a diseased lung, and of this two or three drops were placed 
in each wound. Care was taken to have this fluid as fresh as possible, 
and" also that it should not come from a lung ' over diseased ;' for which 
purpose we caused an animal to be killed in the early stage of pleuro- 
pneumonia, so that no untoward result might arise from a neglect of 
these precautions. We were assisted in these operations by Mr. H. 
Pyatt, veterinary surgeon, Nottingham, who is consulted by Mr. Paget 
in all cases requiring medical care, and who took a deep interest in these 
experiments. Mr. Pyatt also kindly undertook to watch the progress 
of events, and report to us as occasion seemed to require. 

" It was decided to leave fourteen of the inoculated cows to mingle 
indiscriminately with the rest of the herd, but to remove two of them to 
an infirmary shed, into which diseased animals, as they were attacked, 
were taken, so as to expose them to the more direct influence of the 
contagion. This experiment was continued for several weeks, when it 
was discontinued, the animals during the time remaining unaffected. 

" With two exceptions the inoculation failed to produce the slightest 
effect ; and in these two animals it was not until the fifteenth day of the 
operation that the wounds inflamed. In consequence of this failure 
we determined to re-inoculate the cows, which was accordingly done 
on December 13th. Twelve only out of the fourteen were however 
operated upon, two being left to see if the previous inoculation would 
still take ; Dr. Willems, in his Memoir, having stated that a month some- 
times elapses before any local efforts are observed. No such phenome- 
non occurred in either of the cases, but, nevertheless, as one of these 
cows, after inoculation, was a little out of health for about a week, and 
both Mr. Paget and Mr. Pyatt thought this might possibly depend on 
the inoculation, it was determined not to repeat the operation upon her. 
This cow, up to the present time, June 1st, 1853, has continued well. 
This cannot but be considered as a decided instance of a now-inoculated 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 269 

animal resisting for months, equally with those which were inoculated, 
the contagious influence of pleuro-pneumonia ; for the continental au- 
thorities affirm, and in this we fully agree, that no constitutional effects 
can result from inoculation unless local morbid action is first produced. 
With regard to the other cow, she was subsequently re-inoculated, and 
lost -her tail from the gangrenous inflammation which attended the 
operation. 

" On one of the two original cases successfully inoculated, as it is ordi- 
narily described, the inflammation was succeeded by ulceration of the 
parts adjacent to the puncture. It was feared that the animal's tail 
would be lost ; such however did not prove to be the case. Further 
particulars, both with reference to this last-named cow, and also the 
re-inoculations, will best be learned by the following note received from 
Mr. Pyatt on December 17th : — 

"'On Monday last, December 13, I went to Ruddington, and, in 
accordance with your directions, I re-inoculated twelve of the cows. 
Not the slightest effect was produced by the former operation, except in 
two cases. In one, No. 19, I found the tail swollen and very sore, with 
a scab about the size of a shilling covering the place of inoculation. I 
have seen this cow daily since Monday, and, although she appears to be 
perfectly well in health, the tail is now much more inflamed, and the 
wound looking so badly, that I fear in a few days the tail will slough. 
The re-inoculations were made from a highly diseased lung, and it seems 
to me they will all take, as the tails are now a little swollen and very 
sore when pressed. 

'(Signed) Henry Pyatt.' 

" It will be seen from this letter that the fluid used for the re-inocula- 
tions was the product of a more advanced stage of pleuro-pneumonia ; 
to this and also to the deep punctures made by Mr. Pyatt, the marked 
inflammation that speedily followed, or the success of the inoculation as 
it is designated, is to be attributed. On the same day that these twelve 
animals were re-inoculajed two others were operated on, and on Decem- 
ber 19 th two more. These latter two were inoculated with sero-purulent 
fluid obtained from the inoculated places of other cows, being what is 
technically called ' a first remove? The animals bore the respective 
numbers of 10 and 21, these being the marks stamped upon their horns 
on purchase, and necessary to be made mention of for the purpose of 
identification. 

" On the 23d of December we paid a second visit to Ruddington. The 
local effects of the operation, consisting of ordinary inflammation, 
advancing with greater or less rapidity to suppuration, were marked in 
all ; but, comparatively speaking, they were slight in seven out of the 



270 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

original cases. The two animals operated on the same day with the 
twelve, December 13th, presented a similar condition of the parts, as 
did also the two inoculated by the first remove. 

" We selected seven of the most satisfactory cases from out of the 
fourteen inoculated direct with fluid from the lung, to give trial to re- 
inoculation. On four of these the re-inoculation produced morbid action 
equally as great as the original inocidation ; on the others it failed. This 
fact, which is one of the first importance, we shall have again to allude 
to, and therefore we refrain from commenting upon it in this place. 
Between the 23d and the close of the month four more cows were 
inoculated by ' the first remove,' and it was observed that more speedy 
action followed this method than that of direct inoculation with the 
exuded serum of the lung. 

" During the month of December pleuro-pneumonia continued to show 
itself among the animals on the farm, and carried off no less than seven 
of them — six wem-inoculated and one inoculated. The inoculated cow 
was, however, one of those which had been operated on by ' a first 
remove,' on December 19th — No. 21. She was observed to be ill on the 
fifth day succeeding the operation, and an examination showed her to 
be the subject of pleuro-pneumonia. The disease advanced so rapidly 
that by the fourth day of her illness it was deemed prudent to have her 
destroyed. The autopsy confirmed the correctness of the diagnosis. 
Mr. Pyatt writes that the right lung weighed 30 lbs. 

"Presuming inoculation does give security, this case must not be 
ranked among the exceptions or failures, for there cannot be a doubt 
that the animal was affected with pleuro-pneumonia, in its incubative 
stage, at the time she was inoculated. It should be noted, however, that 
the inoculation took effect upon a diseased animal, and that its local action 
was in no way modified thereby ; facts totally at variance with the estab- 
lished laws of inoculation for diseases which are daily propagated in this 
manner. The question of inoculation proving abortive as a means of 
protection, because it was one of ' a first remove,' cannot be raised in 
this particular case, as it has been in others, f^om the facts connected 
with the time of the animal's illness. With regard to the point of non- 
protection from this manner of inoculation, we may remark that No. 
10, operated upon the same day with No. 21, and likewise the four cows 
previously made mention of as being also inoculated by ' a first remove,' 
have now been several months on the premises without giving any evi- 
dence of disease. In this particular they agree with those inoculated 
directly from the lung ; hence we may infer, that, if one is protective, so 
is the other. This point, however, will present itself for our examina- 
tion again in the sequel of this report." 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 271 

" It was acknowledged, even in Hasselt, that they had had as little 
disease in some summers, prior to the employment of inoculation, as 
during the last when the system had reached its climax. In proof that 
inoculation was not the sole cause of this freedom, is the fact that the 
cattle of the distillers, who objected to have the operation performed, con- 
tinued as healthy as those of others who did not so object. What we 
contend for is, that, as there are no specific local effects produced by 
inoculation, so protection does not depend on the special action of a 
special virus on the organism, as is the case with the vaccine and other 
similar diseases." 

3(£ 3fc ?Jr vfc vfc 7& ^ 7f? vfc 

" 1. That inoculations made by superficial punctures and simple 
erasions of the skin, invariably fail to produce any local inflammatory 
action, being the reverse of the case with regard to the vaccine disease, 
smallpox, and other specific affections, of which it is an indication of 
success. 

" 2. That the employment of fresh serous fluid, and a cleanly made, 
but small incision, during the continuance of a low temperature, will also 
almost always fail to produce even the slightest amount of inflammation. 

" 3. That' deep punctures are followed by the ordinary phenomena 
only of such wounds, when containing some slightly irritating agent. 

" 4. That with a high temperature, roughly made incisions, and serous 
fluid a few days old, local ulceration and gangrene, producing occasion- 
ally the death of the patient, will follow inoculation. 

" 5. That the sero-purulent matter, taken from an inoculated sore, 
causes more speedy action than the serum obtained from a diseased lung, 
and that " removes" cannot be effected on scientific principles. 

" 6. That oxen are not only susceptible to the action of a second, but 
of repeated inoculations with the serous exudation of a diseased lung. 

" 7. That an animal inoculated with the serous exudation is in no way 
protected even from the repeated action of the sero-purulent fluid which 
is produced in the wound as a result of the operation. 

"8. That animals not naturally the subjects of pleuro-pneumonia, 
such as donkeys, dogs, &c, are susceptible to the local action both of the 
serous exudation from the lung and the sero-purulent matter obtained 
from the inoculated wounds. 

" 9. That the serous fluid exuded from the lungs is not a specific 
" virus," or " lymph," as it is sometimes designated. 

" 10. That inoculations made with medicinal irritating agents will be 
followed by similar phenomena to those observed in inoculations with 
the exuded serum. 

" 11. That inoculation often acts as a simple issue, and that the secur- 
ity which at times the operation apparently affords, depends in part upon 



272 PLEUROPNEUMONIA. 

this, but principally on the unknown causes which regulate the outbreak, 
spread, and cessation of epidemic diseases. 

"12. That inoculation of cattle, as advocated and practised by Dr. 
Willems and others, is not founded on any known basis of science or 
ascertained law, with regard to the propagation of those diseases com- 
monly called specific. 

" 13. That pleuro-pneumonia occurs at various periods of time, after 
a so-called successful inoculation. 

" 1 4. And lastly, that the severity of pleuro-pneumonia is in no way 
mitigated by previous inoculation, the disease proving equally rapid in 
its progress and fatal in its consequences, in an inoculated, as in an 
tm-inoculated animal." 

These, gentlemen, are facts and opinions with regard to inoc- 
ulation, with regard to that scientific process which has been 
recommended here, as the means of curing, — of putting an end 
to this disease. 

Dr. Reviglio, of Turin, pronounces against inoculation after 
repeated experiments of his own, and after examining many 
reports of commissioners appointed by the governments of 
Austria, Prussia, Holland, Belgium, France, England, and the 
Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom. 

Even in Belgium where inoculation was first introduced, 
a commission recently established, has reported against its 
efficacy. 

This is the history of the disease in Europe ; this is its his- 
tory here. You have the best opinions in Europe, upon inocu- 
lation. Now let us come to the practical part of the matter, 
to that part which concerns us here. I propose to lay before 
you, to a certain extent, the legislation which has been had 
upon the subject. Many laws have been passed and measures 
adopted for the prevention of the spread of the disease. In 
England the Parliament passed an act in 1744, under similar 
circumstances, providing — 

1st, for the killing of all the infected animals, and burying 
them entire with the skins on, " slashed from head to tail," 
that they might not be used for the purposes of the manu- 
facturer. 

2d, for the burning of all the hay and straw used about the 
animals. 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 273 

3d, for the cleaning and fumigating of the sheds, etc., and 
for no sound cattle to be put in them for two months after the 
removal of the diseased. 

4th, for no recovered animal to be allowed to go near others 
for a month after its convalescence. 

5th, for no diseased cattle to be driven to fairs or markets, 
nor for the flesh to be used for dogs, etc. 

6th, for no healthy cattle to be removed from a farm where 
the disease had prevailed in less than a month after its disap- 
pearance. 

And, lastly, orders were given for the notice of an out- 
break to be immediately sent by the farmers to the proper 
authorities. 

This does not apply to pleuro-pneumonia, but to the conta- 
gious diseases existing at the time, so long ago as in 1744. 

And, in 1857, a " select committee on sheep and contagious 
diseases prevention bill," appointed by the British Parliament, 
inquired of Prof. Simonds his views on legislation on the 
subject, and he sustained vigorous measures. 

It has been stated here, that there is a great deficiency in 
the laws of England in regard to contagious diseases ; and a 
gentleman stated, this morning, as an evidence that the dis- 
ease was not contagious, that the Parliament of England have 
not passed any law to prevent its spread. Whether he consid- 
ered it a scientific, a medical, a legal, or a theological opinion, 
I did not ask him. Now, I wish distinctly to state, that there 
is a general law, passed in 1838, with extremely stringent pro- 
visions, precisely what has been passed in Massachusetts, but 
more in detail, and covering the whole ground of the spread 
of disease there. But Parliament has considered this sufficient 
to cover this whole ground ; and while veterinary surgeons* 
have asked for a specific law for the prevention of the spread 
of this disease, the members of Parliament have said, The gen- 
eral law is all-sufficient ; and if it is applied in an efficient way, 
you can stop the progress of this disease among you. That is 
the reason why there is no law, in England, passed for the 
prevention of the spread of pleuro-pneumonia — not because it 
is not a contagious disease, for that had nothing to do with it, 
there, at all, and never had any thing to do with it. 

35 



274 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

In France, the Minister of Agriculture has recently issued 
an order, that no proprietor of cattle shall henceforth be 
indemnified for the loss of his animals from epidemic affections, 
unless he produces a certificate signed by the Prefect of. the 
commune, that they were duly attended by an authorized 
veterinary surgeon. 

In Denmark, a commission was appointed in 1845, to inves- 
tigate the nature and consequences of pleuro-pneumonia. 
Professor Witt, joined with the department veterinary surgeon, 
and a surgeon and veterinary surgeon of the adjoining town 
and territory of Hamburg, formed a commission of inquiry. 
This commission ended its labors by recommending complete 
sequestration of the places where the disease existed, the imme- 
diate slaughter of all infected animals, and the ultimate killing 
of the whole herd upon its being found that fresh cases occurred. 
The diseased animals were to be buried with their skins on, 
but these cut in such a manner as to prevent their being sur- 
reptitiously disposed of, and their bodies were to be sprinkled 
over with chlorinated lime. The indemnity to the proprietor 
was to consist of the government paying two-thirds of the value 
of the diseased animals, and the full value of the healthy ones. 
Various other recommendations were made to secure the carry- 
ing into practice these extreme measures. Thus a proprietor 
was to be fined for not giving notice of his cattle being affected ; 
and he was also not to be allowed to sell any animals off his 
farm until the department veterinary surgeon saw fit to give 
him a certificate of their being in a state of health. 

These measures were at once adopted and are now in force. 
The effect is said to be that pleuro-pneumonia has more than 
once totally disappeared, and its subsequent appearance is 
attributed to fresh introduction from abroad. And its last 
'appearance in Denmark, in 1843, is attributed to the purchase 
of one hundred and eighty oxen brought from Hungary, and 
suffered to graze on the islands and marsh lands of the Elbe. 

Serious complaints have been made in England, that a Bill 
which has been reported has not passed Parliament. 

The Veterinarian of April, 1860, contains a very able article 
on this subject, and calls for immediate legislative action, 
stating : " On all sides we are asked what can be done to cure 
the disease ? and gloomily are we looked upon when we reply, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 275 

that, as a rule, it is incurable, but that it can frequently be 
prevented, and would be so, were sanitary measures adopted 
by the legislature, to limit the contagion." 

So much for the history of the disease here, its course in 
Europe, the tone of legislation there, where it has existed in 
enlightened and not panic-stricken nations. Now, one word 
in regard to the action of the Commissioners here. 

I have heard the terms " waste," u indiscriminate and whole- 
sale slaughter," used here, as if this Commission, appointed by 
the legislature at its last session, had gone about the Common- 
wealth, thirsting for the blood of animals, whether sick or 
well. Now, gentlemen, it is not so. The records of the Com- 
mission, which I laid upon the table this morning, will show 
you that in all cases they have exercised their best judgment, 
not only in the killing of animals, but, really, that they have 
gone beyond the law, and taken upon themselves to seques- 
trate and isolate, wherever it seemed to be for the pecuniary 
benefit of the people of Massachusetts. They have endeavored, 
wherever possible, to consider the pecuniary interests of the 
Commonwealth, and the wants and interests of the agricul- 
tural region in which this disease existed and now exists. 
They have felt that this double duty devolved upon them, and 
they have endeavered in every way in their power, calmly, dis- 
passionately, and judiciously to carry out the intentions of the 
legislature. Why, gentlemen, it seems as if the panic was all 
on the other side. It seems as if gentlemen were more afraid 
of the Commissioners than of the disease ; as if the panic were 
not in regard to the pleuro-pneumonia, but in regard to the 
Commission of extirpation. When I read the Remonstrance 
which has been presented to the legislature, I was astonished 
that reasonable men, with the knowledge before them, easily to 
be obtained if they would but read, should come forward here 
and lay before an intelligent, enlightened, and not panic- 
stricken community, such assertions. On what grounds do 
they make them ? They say : — 

" Because it has not been proved that said disease is either contagious 
or infectious." 

What will prove it ? Will any thing prove it ? Would these 
men believe it if they themselves had an attack of the pleuro- 
pneumonia, contagious and exudative ? They also say : — 



276 PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

" Because the legislation authorizing the killing of the cattle is a 
departure from the legitimate province of legislation, all experience 
agreeing to show, that the remedy of an evil like this is more econom- 
ically and more surely secured when left to intelligent individual inter- 
ests than by govermental interference." 

Just after this, they say : — 

" Because the legislature has no right to authorize the destruction of 
private property, except as a public or common nuisance ; and for these 
contingencies, existing laws, deliberately passed, and carefully guarding 
personal rights, adequately provide, and because our Bill of Rights 
guaranties that the property of any individual shall be appropriated to 
public uses only when the public exigencies require it, and then he shall 
receive reasonable compensation therefor." 

Why, — is not that the foundation of the law, as it stands 
upon the statute-book ? Is not pleuro-pneumonia a nuisance ? 
Is it npt a nuisance ? Can the true state of the matter be 
defined in any way better than this, — that there is a nuisance, 
and that according to the Bill of Rights, and under the Con- 
stitution, and by the statute-book of Massachusetts, the legis- 
lature has a perfect right to pass such a law as this, for the 
removal of a nuisance ? And when it is said that such acts as 
are provided for in this law shall not be done except by the 
State paying proper compensation therefor, I would ask if any 
man has raised a word against compensation. The cry has 
been upon the other side. It is said the farmers are too well 
paid", — that the Commissioners have taken care that the farmers 
shall get too much money. Is there any consistency in this, 
any science, any sound principle of legislation, any constitu- 
tional law ? It seems to me that common sense, prudence, 
discretion, every thing which would teach men to be obedient 
to the laws, every thing which would teach them their own self- 
interest in ridding the community of such an evil, would plead 
against such a remonstrance. 

Why, gentlemen, the Commissioners have been acting under 
the direction of the legislature, and with a view to the benefit 
of the people of the Commonwealth. They were appointed to 
carry out that provision of the Bill of Rights which says that 
private property shall not be taken except to abate a nuisance, 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 277 

and that the owner shall then receive reasonable compensation 
therefor. And compensation, therefore, has been granted : 
and so entirely satisfied were the sufferers from this nuisance, 
of the intention and designs of the legislature which passed 
that Act, that they have come forward and signed an agree- 
ment to trust to your magnanimity to pay the bills. They have 
been entirely satisfied that they were laboring under an utterly 
intolerable nuisance, and, moreover, that the legislature of 
Massachusetts would help them out of this nuisance and sus- 
tain them in the abatement of it. I say they have come forward, 
not as matter of compromise ; but every one whose cattle 
have been destroyed has said: u Gentlemen, we will abide by 
your judgment in regard to those you consider diseased i we 
are perfectly willing to lose them ; and we will wait for our 
compensation until the legislature of Massachusetts passes an 
additional appropriation for that purpose." That is the pre- 
vailing feeling wherever the disease has existence ; that is the 
prevailing feeling there where the disease was planted so long 
ago that it would have literally extirpated the cattle, itself, 
Commissioners or no Commissioners, by this time — they having 
simply hastened the work. Had they been stopped in their 
work, as they were threatened to be stopped, at one time, by 
the want of funds ; had the farmers been unwilling to come 
forward freely,, fairly, intelligently, and honestly, to sustain 
them in their course, nobody would ever have talked about the 
Commission extirpating — pleuro-pneumonia would have done 
its own work there. 

Now, gentlemen, I have nothing to say with regard to all 
the investigations that can be made, of this matter. I would 
be glad to have it investigated. I have just as much respect for 
science as any man can have. It was the study of all the early 
part of my life. And when these gentlemen came upon the 
stand, here, and testified with regard to the scientific demands 
in this case, I saw my old teachers standing before me. I 
respect them for their untiring industry ; I respect them for the 
efforts they are continually making to stop the progress of 
disease in this community ; I respect them for the success they 
have met with in all the sanitary efforts they have made. I 
cannot help admiring them for the advantages they have fur- 
nished us, in modern times, in all matters of ventilation, of diet ; 



278 ' PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 

in all those things which go to arm the human race against 
disease. I respect them, too, for their ceaseless industry in 
searching out the fountains of disease. But they will tell you, 
every one of them, that when they have learned what marks 
disease makes upon the human body, and what pathological 
phenomena appear in a diseased organ, no human being has ever, 
beyond that been able to proceed, — that that is the boundary line, 
the ultima thule, past which no science has ever gone. And one of 
the most interesting and fascinating medical books I have ever 
read was written by a scientific gentleman of this city, a mem- 
ber of your Board of Agriculture, a gentleman of skill and 
intelligence, who comes forward to say, that all the scientific 
observations of disease can never enable us to ascertain, by 
these pathological facts, any remedy for the sickness, — that 
you may dissect, till the trump of doom has sounded, livers 
that are affected by the fever and ague, and that nothing that 
is discovered by such dissection will ever indicate the use of 
quinine as the remedial agent. While I regard science as one 
of the highest achievements of the human mind ; while I admire 
my old teachers and the great extent of their attainments, I 
still say that before this malady they are as powerless as they 
have always been before the ravages of all contagious diseases in 
the human family. They have no power to stay it. It will 
"have its run," as Dr. Jackson said here to-day; and lam 
happy to state that his scientific testimony went to sustain the 
legislature of Massachusetts, and the Commission, in that act 
of extirpation which has been attempted here, and that he him- 
self said that were it within the range of possibility, — about 
which he did not profess to decide, — he would not have science 
stop the operation, for one single instant. Now, gentlemen, 
shall we, shall we, in all this weakness of scientific investi- 
gation, in the face and eyes of this testimony which we 
have before us, shall we, — when we know that the disease if 
let alone, will ravage our Commonwealth, — shall we stop to 
establish hospitals, and all sorts of operations, for the benefit 
of scientific investigation ? If any thing can be done, if any 
new laws can be ascertained, if any new light can be had upon 
the matter, in Heaven's name let us have them, and let us go 
to work and get rid of the disease. That is the object and 
intention of the Act of the last legislature ; and while, as the 



HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE. 279 

gentleman who preceded me said, I have nothing to recommend 
to the Committee, leaving it entirely to their wisdom to suggest 
the laws which shall control the operation, I do say that when 
the State of Massachusetts is well read in this disease, whether 
it be this month or next month, this year or next year, the 
legislature that enables the farmers to get rid of it will be 
considered to have conferred a greater benefit upon the Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts, than almost any legislature that 
has preceded or can come after it. It is for the agricultural 
interests, for the farmers, that we are at work here. And for 
the first time in my life, let me tell you, farmer as I am, I 
have learned what it is to work. I thought it was a pretty 
piece of business to contend against the thorns and thistles 
that have sprung up against mankind ; I thought it was 
charming to engage in the occupations of husbandry, but when 
I was informed by the governor, that he had put me upon this 
Commission, with a prospect of hard work and small pay, I did 
not understand the Herculean task which was placed before 
me. And I call upon the legislature of Massachusetts to sus- 
tain myself and my brother Commissioners in the work which 
we have undertaken. 

Mr. Walker. — I would here take the liberty to remark in 
reference to the supposition of my colleague, Dr. Loring, that 
I differed from the remainder of the Commission, in regard to 
the satisfactory character of our knowledge of the disease, I 
made no such remark as was attributed to me. I never said 
that the ignorance of the laws of the disease prevented our 
going forward. I merely said : — 

" It is the want of knowledge of the laws of the disease that is the 
great obstacle to our operations ; and it is the most alarming fact in 
regard to the disease, that it doesn't seem to be understood at all in 
this country, or even in Europe, where they have had it for two hundred 
years." 

That was the remark I did make ; and my colleague had not 
seen it, or he would not have alluded to it as he did. 

The Committee then proceeded to consultation. 



